2718 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

Permit record No. Applicant Species Location Activity Type of take Permit 

action 

PER5502059 ....... Fenolio, Dante; 

San Antonio, 

Texas.

Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii 

ingens), gray bat (Myotis grisescens), northern 

long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Indiana 

bat (Myotis sodalis), Hell Creek Cave crayfish 

(Cambarus zophonastes), Benton County Cave 

crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum), Barton Springs 

salamander (Eurycea sosorum), Austin blind 

salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis), Peck’s 

Cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), Comal 

Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), 

Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus 

comalensis), Texas blind salamander (Eurycea 

rathbuni), Mexican blind catfish (Prietella 

phreatophila), Clear Creek gambusia (Gambusia 

heterochir).

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas.Presence/absence surveys, bio-sample, voucher 

specimen, 

transport.

Harass, harm, 

capture, kill.

New. 

Public Availability of Comments 

All comments we receive become part 

of the public record associated with this 

action. Requests for copies of comments 

will be handled in accordance with the 

Freedom of Information Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act, and Service 

and Department of the Interior policies 

and procedures. Before including your 

address, phone number, email address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us to withhold your 

personal identifying information from 

public review, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. All 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public disclosure in 

their entirety. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under section 

10 of the Endangered Species Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Amy Lueders, 

Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00505 Filed 1–10–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2024–0147; 

FXES111607MRG01–256–FF07CAMM00] 

Marine Mammals; Proposed Incidental 

Harassment Authorization for the 

Southern Beaufort Sea Stock of Polar 

Bears During Well Remediation 

Activities, North Slope of Alaska; Draft 

Environmental Assessment 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application; 

proposed incidental harassment 

authorization; notice of availability of 

draft environmental assessment; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, in response to a 

request under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act from the Bureau of Land 

Management, propose to authorize 

nonlethal incidental take by harassment 

of small numbers of Southern Beaufort 

Sea (SBS) polar bears (Ursus maritimus) 

for 1 year from the date of issuance of 

the incidental harassment authorization 

(IHA). The applicant requested this 

authorization for take by harassment 

that may result from activities 

associated with oil well plugging and 

reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, 

pad, and airstrip construction, and 

summer cleanup activities in the North 

Slope Borough of Alaska between 

Wainwright and Oliktok. This proposed 

authorization, if finalized, will be for up 

to 12 takes of polar bears by Level B 

harassment. No Level A harassment or 

lethal take is requested, expected, or 

proposed to be authorized. We invite 

comments on the proposed IHA, the 

application package, draft 

environmental assessment, and related 

documents from the public and local, 

State, Tribal, and Federal agencies. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 12, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: 

Document availability: You may view 

documents at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R7–ES–2024–0147. Alternatively, 

you may request these documents from 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Comment submission: You may 

submit comments on the proposed 

authorization by one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic submission: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2024–0147. 

• U.S. mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R7– 

ES–2024–0147, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We will post all comments at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may request 

that we withhold personal identifying 

information from public review; 

however, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. See Request for 

Public Comments for more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hamilton, by email at 

R7mmmregulatory@fws.gov, by 

telephone at 907–786–3800, or by U.S. 

mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS 341, 1011 East Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, AK 99503. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2719 

seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking by harassment of 

small numbers of marine mammals in 

response to requests by U.S. citizens (as 

defined in title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) in part 18, at 50 CFR 

18.27(c)) engaged in a specified activity 

(other than commercial fishing) in a 

specified geographic region during a 

period of not more than 1 year. The 

Secretary has delegated authority for 

implementation of the MMPA to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or 

we). According to the MMPA, the FWS 

shall allow this incidental taking by 

harassment if we make findings that the 

total of such taking for the 1-year 

period: 

(1) is of small numbers of marine 

mammals of a species or stock; 

(2) will have a negligible impact on 

such species or stocks; and 

(3) will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock for taking for 

subsistence use by Alaska Natives. 

If the requisite findings are made, we 

issue an authorization that sets forth the 

following, where applicable: 

(a) permissible methods of taking; 

(b) means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species or stock and its habitat and the 

availability of the species or stock for 

subsistence uses; and 

(c) requirements for monitoring and 

reporting of such taking by harassment, 

including, in certain circumstances, 

requirements for the independent peer 

review of proposed monitoring plans or 

other research proposals. 

The term ‘‘take’’ means to harass, 

hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to 

harass, hunt, capture, or kill, any marine 

mammal. ‘‘Harassment’’ for activities 

other than military readiness activities 

or scientific research conducted by or 

on behalf of the Federal Government 

means any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance which (i) has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild (the MMPA 

defines this as ‘‘Level A harassment’’), 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(the MMPA defines this as ‘‘Level B 

harassment’’). 

The terms ‘‘negligible impact’’ and 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ are 

defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., 

regulations governing small takes of 

marine mammals incidental to specified 

activities) as follows: ‘‘Negligible 

impact’’ is an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

‘‘Unmitigable adverse impact’’ means an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity: (1) that is likely to reduce the 

availability of the species to a level 

insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by (i) causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing 

subsistence users, or (iii) placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) that cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

The term ‘‘small numbers’’ is also 

defined in 50 CFR 18.27. However, we 

do not rely on that definition here as it 

conflates ‘‘small numbers’’ with 

‘‘negligible impacts.’’ We recognize 

‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘negligible 

impacts’’ as two separate and distinct 

requirements when reviewing requests 

for incidental harassment authorizations 

(IHA) under the MMPA (see Natural 

Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F. 

Supp. 2d 1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). 

Instead, for our small numbers 

determination, we estimate the likely 

number of marine mammals to be taken 

and evaluate if that number is small 

relative to the size of the species or 

stock. 

The term ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact’’ is not defined in the MMPA or 

its enacting regulations. For this IHA, 

we ensure the least practicable adverse 

impact by requiring mitigation measures 

that are effective in reducing the impact 

of specified activities, but not so 

restrictive as to make specified activities 

unduly burdensome or impossible to 

undertake and complete. 

If the requisite findings are made, we 

shall issue an IHA, which may set forth 

the following, where applicable: (i) 

permissible methods of taking; (ii) other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on the species or stock and its 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stock for 

taking for subsistence uses by coastaldwelling Alaska Natives (if applicable); 

and (iii) requirements for monitoring 

and reporting take by harassment. 

Summary of Request 

On June 17, 2024, the FWS received 

a request from the Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) for authorization to take by 

nonlethal incidental harassment small 

numbers of Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) 

polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during oil 

well plugging and reclamation; soil 

sampling; snow trail, pad, and airstrip 

construction; and summer cleanup 

activities in the North Slope Borough of 

Alaska between Wainwright and Oliktok 

for a period of 1 year from the date of 

issuance, and beginning during the 

winter of 2024–2025. Their request also 

included a proposed Polar Bear 

Awareness and Interaction Plan. 

The FWS requested further 

information on June 20, 2024, and July 

10, 2024. The BLM submitted clarifying 

information on July 10, 17, and 23, 

2024. The FWS received a revised 

application on August 26, 2024. The 

FWS deemed the revised request dated 

August 2024 (received August 26, 2024; 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Request’’) 

adequate and complete on August 27, 

2024. 

Description of Specified Activities and 

Specified Geographic Region 

The specified activities described in 

the Request consist of oil well plugging 

and reclamation; soil sampling; snow 

trail, pad, and airstrip construction; and 

summer cleanup activities associated 

with two legacy well sites in the North 

Slope Borough of Alaska between 

Wainwright and Oliktok (figure 1; BLM 

2024). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2720 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

The BLM subsequently clarified that 

activities (e.g., resupply, backhaul of 

waste, demobilization of equipment) 

that could occur on pre-existing gravel 

roads to the east of the specified 

geographic region (i.e., between Oliktok 

and Prudhoe Bay) are not specified 

activities for which BLM requests 

incidental take authorization. 

Fish Creek #1 Legacy Well Reclamation 

The Fish Creek #1 Legacy Well (Fish 

Creek well), located in wetland tundra 

approximately 14.5 kilometers (km) (9 

miles [mi]) inland from the coast and 

approximately 39 km (24 mi) northwest 

of Nuiqsut, was drilled in 1949 by the 

U.S. Navy (figure 1). A concrete pad was 

built on pilings for drilling operations, 

and the cellar was concrete reinforced 

with steel matting. No reserve or flare 

pits are associated with this well. The 

well was drilled to a total depth of 2,139 

meters (m) (7,020 feet [ft]), then plugged 

back to 777 m (2,550 ft) and sidetracked 

to a new total depth of 920 m (3,018 ft) 

(BLM 2024). 

In 2020 and 2021, the BLM began and 

completed soil sampling and debris 

removal at Fish Creek well. Sampling 

work showed areas around the wellhead 

with impacted soil and concrete, 

resulting in 3.1 cubic meters (m3) (4 

cubic yards [yd3]) of material that were 

removed for disposal. The BLM’s 2020– 

2021 cleanup efforts also generated 

approximately 29 m3 (38 yd3) of 

materials including recyclable scrap 

metal 8.4 m3 (11 yd3) and inert debris 

21 m3 (27 yd3) for proper disposal. 

However, due to time constraints 

encountered during winter 2021 

activities, the petroleum-contaminated 

soil identified during the sample efforts 

was not removed (estimated 3.8 m3 [5 

yd3]). Further in-depth descriptions of 

previous remediation actions at the Fish 

Creek well are provided within the 

BLM’s application (BLM 2024). The 

proposed project would permanently 

plug and close the Fish Creek well and 

remove all chemicals, fluids, drilling 

wastes, contaminated soil, and any 

remaining scattered surface debris 

found at the site. Specific methodology 

for well plugging and waste collection 

are described in the BLM’s application 

(BLM 2024). 

Cape Halkett #1 Legacy Well 

Reclamation 

The Cape Halkett #1 well (Cape 

Halkett well), located about 6.4 km (4 

mi) from the coast and approximately 82 

km (51 mi) northwest of Nuiqsut, was 

drilled by the U.S. Navy in 1975 (figure 

1). The well site contains extensive 

wooden pilings that supported an 

elevated platform above the water to 

conduct drilling operations. An open 

casing extends 0.6 m (2 ft) above ground 

level. It is located inside a steel framed 

and sheeted cellar that has been sheared 

on the east side and completely rusted 

at the base. The cellar contains minor 

amounts of metal debris inside and 

broken cement blocks outside. There is 

no reserve pit present. However, two 

low gravel-bermed areas were 

constructed, one around the fuel area 

and the other for discharge of drilling 

waste. The well was originally plugged 

in 1975 with four cement plugs set at 

2,682 m (8,800 ft), 2,499 m (8,200 ft), 

and 2,387m (7,830 ft). The final plug 

was set with a mix of ArcticSet and 

Class G cement from 434 m (1,425 ft) to 

the surface of the well. Minor 

remediation efforts were undertaken in 

the late 1970s and early 1980; however, 

more is required. Sampling activities at 

the Cape Halkett well were performed 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 

1989. Results of the sampling efforts 

showed elevated levels of total 

petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), oil and 

grease concentrations, benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene, xylenes, barium, and 

chromium. Observations from the USGS 

and BLM site visits note a pile of 

drilling mud and a pile of cuttings near 

the well. The total volume of soil 

removal is not fully known; however, it 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN13JA25.039</GPH>

72°N 

71°N 

11111111 Aerial Infrared (AIR) Survey Routes * Legacy Wells 

-- Snow Trail Routes 

l I I 

160°W 156°W 152°W 150°W 148°W 

Figure 1-Specific geographic region of the proposed legacy well plugging and reclamation in the North 

Slope Borough of Alaska. 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2721 

is not anticipated to be a substantial 

volume (BLM 2024). 

This project would verify and ensure 

permanent closure of the Cape Halkett 

well and remove all chemicals, fluids, 

drilling wastes, contaminated soil, and 

any remaining scattered surface debris 

found at the site. Any pilings still 

exposed above ground would be cut at 

or slightly below the ground surface of 

the excavated areas. Any excavated 

areas would be backfilled. Specific 

methodology for well plugging and 

waste collection are described in the 

BLM’s application (BLM 2024). 

Snow Trail, Pad, and Airstrip 

Construction 

There are no permanent roads 

available to directly access either of the 

two legacy wells included in this 

project; therefore, construction of 

temporary snow trails is required. Snow 

trail construction will begin in January 

or February 2025, starting with 

‘‘prepacking’’ a minimum of 15 

centimeters (6 inches) of base snow via 

all-terrain smooth-tracked vehicles 

approved for off-road tundra travel. 

Prepacking promotes lower tundra soil 

temperatures and accelerates freezing of 

soils prior to use, thereby helping to 

protect the tundra during snow trail and 

pad grooming, maintenance, and use. 

Snow will also be packed around stream 

crossings to protect stream banks and 

vegetation. Exact locations may vary up 

to 1.6 km (1 mi) on either side of the 

center lines of the snow trail routes 

depicted in figure 1 based on field 

conditions. This project will require the 

use of up to approximately 790 km (491 

mi) of 9-m (30-ft) wide snow trails; 

however, some of the trails utilized will 

include annually constructed public-use 

trail systems such as the North Slope 

Borough Community Winter Access 

Trail (CWAT) (BLM 2024). The majority 

of public snow trail usage, including all 

trails west of approximately 153°W 

longitude, will occur only during 

demobilization after April 15 when 

polar bear denning season has ended. 

Only snow trails that have been 

surveyed for maternal dens via aerial 

infrared (AIR) (see Maternal Den 

Surveys) will be used during the 

denning season (November to April 15; 

figure 1). All snow trail usage will cease 

with the spring thaw. 

A 610-m (2,000-ft) long by 30-m (100- 

ft) wide snow airstrip will be 

constructed at both well sites to allow 

winter resupply via fixed-wing aircraft. 

No fuel will be stored at the airstrips. A 

2.4-hectare (6-acre, 152-m-by-152 m, 

500-ft-by-500-ft) snow pad will be 

constructed at both well sites to support 

testing, cleanup, plugging, and other 

associated activities. No water will be 

used for snow trail, pad, or airstrip 

construction. 

Mobilization, Resupply, and 

Demobilization 

Large equipment, including mobile 

camp trailers, drill rigs, and other 

support equipment and supplies, will be 

moved west to the Fish Creek and Cape 

Halkett well sites from routes 

originating at either the 2P gravel pad 

and/or existing pads at Oliktok (figure 

1). The specific route will be 

determined, in part, by environmental 

conditions. However, to be conservative, 

our analyses assume all routes are used. 

Equipment will be hauled along snow 

trails by appropriate sized tractors or 

other similar equipment. In January or 

February 2025, four to six trips will be 

required to haul camp trailers, vehicles, 

and drill rig equipment to the well sites, 

followed by four to six trips to return 

equipment during demobilization in 

April 2025. During operations, up to 30 

additional round trips will be required 

for resupply and/or backhaul waste at 

both well sites. Furthermore, up to 25 

winter resupply flights via fixed-wing 

aircraft will be required at both well 

sites (up to 50 total flights). 

Following final well plugging, 

cleanup, inspections, and soil sampling, 

all equipment would be demobilized 

Wainwright, Utqiag ̇vik, or Atqasuk 

along routes shown in figure 1. The drill 

rig and wastes generated from the well 

plugging and closure would be 

transported along routes to 2P or 

Oliktok before final transportation for 

appropriate disposal. The majority of 

snow trail and camp cleanup, such as 

trash removal and stick-picking, will 

occur during demobilization, but final 

inspections will occur during the 

summer via helicopter (see Summer 

Cleanup and Inspections). Full scope of 

waste material disposal procedures is 

available in the BLM’s application (BLM 

2024). 

Camp Setup 

Mobile camps will be required to 

provide crew lodging during well site 

activities. The camp set up at Fish Creek 

will consist of 20–25 trailers to provide 

housing, restrooms, kitchen, office 

space, shop spaces, and other required 

facilities for approximately 25 

personnel. At Cape Halkett, 7–10 trailers 

will be required to provide the same 

amenities to 15 personnel. Camps will 

be established within 1 mile of the well 

site based on initial field scouting and 

environmental conditions. Generation of 

potable water from snow and disposal of 

grey water will follow Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation guidance and regulation. 

Project-generated waste such as 

household trash, rags, and other used 

disposable materials will be stored on 

location in approved containers to 

prevent wildlife access until being 

incinerated using appropriate 

equipment or disposed of at a permitted 

landfill. 

Summer Cleanup and Inspections 

The majority of snow trail and camp 

cleanup, such as trash removal and 

stick-picking, will occur during 

demobilization in spring 2025 (April– 

May). However, a helicopter will be 

used for approximately 8–10 days in 

July and/or August 2025 to inspect and 

remove any debris left on the snow 

trails, pads, airstrip, and well sites. The 

helicopter will fly at low elevation 

(under 50 ft) to conduct inspections. In 

addition, the helicopter will land at the 

well sites for soil sampling (with hand 

tools) and final inspections, and to 

remove surface debris that may have 

been missed during winter operations. 

Approximately 50 helicopter landings 

would be expected during summer 

cleanup, inspections, and sampling 

activities. 

Maternal Den Surveys 

The BLM will conduct two AIR 

maternal polar bear den surveys prior to 

beginning operations to identify any 

active dens in project areas that will be 

utilized during the denning period. This 

compromises the north-south snow trail 

located approximately along 153°W 

longitude and all project components to 

the east of this trail, including the well 

sites, lakes, and other snow trails (figure 

1). The surveyors will use AIR cameras 

on fixed-wing aircraft, with flights 

flown between 245–457 m (800–1,500 

ft) above ground level at a speed of <185 

kilometers per hour (<115 miles per 

hour). These surveys will be 

concentrated on areas within 1.6 km (1 

mi) of project activities that would be 

suitable for polar bear denning activity, 

such as drainages, banks, bluffs, or other 

areas of topographic relief. The first 

survey will be conducted between 

December 1 and December 25, 2024, and 

the second survey will be conducted 

between December 15, 2024, and 

January 10, 2025, with a minimum of 24 

hours between surveys. Sections of the 

project impact area that will not be used 

until after denning season (after April 

15) will not be surveyed. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Specified Geographic Region 

Polar bears are the only species of 

marine mammal managed by the FWS 

likely to be found within the specified 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2722 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

geographic region. Information on range, 

stocks, biology, and climate change 

impacts on polar bears can be found in 

appendix A of the supplemental 

information (available as described 

above in ADDRESSES). 

Potential Impacts of the Specified 

Activities on Marine Mammals 

Surface-Level Impacts on Polar Bears 

Disturbance impacts on polar bears 

will be influenced by the type, duration, 

intensity, timing, and location of the 

source of disturbance. Disturbance from 

the specified activities would originate 

primarily from aircraft overflights 

(helicopter and fixed wing), tundra 

travel, well site plugging and 

reclamation, well site soil sampling, 

mobilization and demobilization, and 

cleanup activities. The noises, sights, 

and smells produced by these activities 

could elicit variable responses from 

polar bears, ranging from avoidance to 

attraction. When disturbed by noise, 

animals may respond behaviorally by 

walking, running, or swimming away 

from a noise source, or physiologically 

via increased heart rates or hormonal 

stress responses (Harms et al. 1997; 

Tempel and Gutierrez 2003). However, 

individual response to noise 

disturbance can be influenced by 

previous interactions, sex, age, and 

maternal status (Anderson and Aars 

2008; Dyck and Baydack 2004). Noise 

and odors could also attract polar bears 

to work areas. Attracting polar bears to 

these locations could result in humanpolar bear interactions, unintentional 

harassment, intentional hazing, or 

possible lethal take in defense of human 

life. This proposed IHA, if finalized, 

would authorize only the nonlethal, 

incidental, unintentional take of polar 

bears that may result from the specified 

activities and would require mitigation 

measures to manage attractants in work 

areas and reduce the risk of human– 

polar bear interactions. 

Human-Polar Bear Interactions 

A larger percentage of polar bears are 

spending more time on land during the 

open-water season, which may increase 

the risk for human-polar bear 

interactions (Atwood et al. 2016; Rode 

et al. 2022). Polar bear interaction plans, 

personnel training, attractants 

management, and polar bear monitoring 

are mitigation measures used to reduce 

human-polar bear interactions and 

minimize the risks to humans and polar 

bears when interactions occur. Polar 

bear interaction plans detail the policies 

and procedures that will be 

implemented by the BLM to avoid 

attracting and interacting with polar 

bears, as well as minimizing impacts to 

the polar bears. Interaction plans also 

detail how to respond to the presence of 

polar bears, the chain of command and 

communication, and required training 

for personnel. Efficient management of 

attractants (e.g., human food, garbage) 

can prevent polar bears from associating 

humans with food, which mitigates the 

risk of human-polar bear interactions 

(Atwood and Wilder 2021). Information 

gained from monitoring polar bears near 

industrial infrastructure can be useful 

for better understanding polar bear 

distribution, behavior, and interactions 

with humans. Technology that may be 

used to facilitate detection and 

monitoring of polar bears includes bear 

monitors, closed-circuit television, 

video cameras, thermal cameras, radar 

devices, and motion-detection systems. 

It is possible that human-polar bear 

interactions may occur during the 

specified activities, and mitigation 

measures, as described in the 

applicant’s Polar Bear Awareness and 

Interaction Plan, will be implemented 

by the BLM to minimize the risk of 

human–polar bear interactions during 

the specified activities. 

From mid-July to mid-November, SBS 

stock polar bears can be found in large 

numbers and high densities on barrier 

islands, along the coastline, and in the 

nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea, 

particularly on and around Barter and 

Cross Islands (Wilson et al. 2017). This 

distribution leads to a significantly 

higher number of human-polar bear 

interactions on land and at offshore 

structures during the open-water season 

than other times of the year. Polar bears 

that remain on the multi-year pack ice 

are not typically present in the ice-free 

areas where vessel traffic occurs, as 

barges and vessels associated with 

industrial activities travel in open water 

and avoid large ice floes. 

On land, most polar bear observations 

occur within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the 

coastline based on polar bear 

monitoring reports. Facilities within the 

offshore and coastal areas are more 

likely to be approached by polar bears, 

and they may act as physical barriers to 

polar bear movements. As polar bears 

encounter these facilities, the chances 

for human-polar bear interactions 

increase. However, polar bears have 

frequently been observed crossing 

existing roads and causeways, and they 

appear to traverse the human-developed 

areas as easily as the undeveloped areas 

based on monitoring reports. 

Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Polar 

Bears 

Polar bears experience increased 

noise and visual stimuli when fixedwing aircraft or helicopters fly above 

them, which may elicit a biologically 

significant behavioral response. Sound 

frequencies produced by aircraft will 

likely fall within the hearing range of 

polar bears (Nachtigall et al. 2007) and 

will be audible to polar bears during 

flyovers or when operating in proximity 

to polar bears. Polar bears likely have 

acute hearing, with previous 

sensitivities demonstrated between 1.4 

and 22.5 kilohertz (kHz) (tests were 

limited to 22.5 kHz (Nachtigall et al. 

2007)). When exposed to high-energy 

sound, this hearing range may become 

impaired temporarily (called temporary 

threshold shift, or TTS) or permanently 

(called permanent threshold shift, or 

PTS). Species-specific TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been established for 

polar bears at this time, but TTS and 

PTS thresholds have been established 

for the general group ‘‘other marine 

carnivores,’’ which includes polar bears 

(Southall et al. 2019). Through a series 

of systematic modeling procedures and 

extrapolations, Southall et al. (2019) 

generated modified noise exposure 

thresholds for both in-air and 

underwater sound (table 1). 

TABLE 1—TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (TTS) AND PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (PTS) THRESHOLDS ESTABLISHED

BY SOUTHALL ET AL. (2019) THROUGH MODELING AND EXTRAPOLATION FOR ‘‘OTHER MARINE CARNIVORES,’’ WHICH

INCLUDES POLAR BEARS

TTS PTS 

Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive 

SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL 

Air ............................................................................. 157 146 170 177 161 176 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I 

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2723 

TABLE 1—TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (TTS) AND PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (PTS) THRESHOLDS ESTABLISHED

BY SOUTHALL ET AL. (2019) THROUGH MODELING AND EXTRAPOLATION FOR ‘‘OTHER MARINE CARNIVORES,’’ WHICH

INCLUDES POLAR BEARS—Continued 

TTS PTS 

Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive 

SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL 

Water ........................................................................ 199 188 226 219 203 232 

Note: Values are weighted for other marine carnivores’ hearing thresholds and given in cumulative sound exposure level (SELCUM dB re 

20μPa in air and SELCUM dB re 1 μPa in water) for impulsive and nonimpulsive sounds, and unweighted peak sound pressure level in air (dB re 

20μPa) and water (dB 1μPa) (impulsive sounds only). 

During a Federal Aviation 

Administration test, test aircraft 

produced sound at all frequencies 

measured (50 Hz to 10 kHz) (Healy 

1974). At frequencies centered at 5 kHz, 

jets flying at 300 m (984 ft) produced 1⁄3

octave band noise levels of 84 to 124 dB, 

propeller-driven aircraft produced 75 to 

90 dB, and helicopters produced 60 to 

70 dB (Richardson et al. 1995). Thus, 

the frequency and level of airborne 

sounds typically produced by aircraft 

are unlikely to cause TTS or PTS unless 

polar bears are very close to the sound 

source. 

Although neither TTS nor PTS is 

anticipated during the specified 

activities, impacts from aircraft 

overflights have the potential to elicit 

biologically significant behavioral 

responses from polar bears. Exposure to 

aircraft overflights is expected to result 

in short-term behavior changes, such as 

ceasing to rest, walking, or running, 

and, therefore, has the potential to be 

energetically costly. Polar bears 

observed during intentional aircraft 

overflights conducted to study impacts 

of aircraft on polar bear responses, with 

an average flight altitude of 143 m (469 

ft), exhibited biologically meaningful 

behavioral responses during 66.6 

percent of aircraft overflights. These 

behavioral responses were significantly 

correlated with the aircraft’s altitude, 

the bear’s location (e.g., coastline, 

barrier island), and the bear’s activity 

(Quigley 2022; Quigley et al. 2024). 

Polar bears associated with dens 

exhibited various responses when 

exposed to low-flying aircraft, ranging 

from increased head movement and 

observation of the disturbance to the 

initiation of rapid movement and/or den 

abandonment (Larson et al. 2020). 

Aircraft activities can impact polar bears 

across all seasons; however, aircraft 

have a greater potential to disturb both 

individuals and groups of polar bears on 

land during the summer and fall. These 

onshore polar bears are primarily fasting 

or seeking alternative terrestrial foods 

(Cherry et al. 2009; Griffen et al. 2022), 

and polar bear responses to aircraft 

overflights may result in metabolic costs 

to limited energy reserves. To reduce 

potential disturbance of polar bears 

during aircraft activities, mitigation 

measures, such as minimum flight 

altitudes over polar bears and their 

frequently used areas and flight 

restrictions around known polar bear 

aggregations, will be conducted when 

safe to perform these operations during 

aircraft activities. 

Effects to Denning Polar Bears 

Known polar bear dens around the oil 

fields and other areas of the North Slope 

are monitored by the FWS. These dens 

may be discovered opportunistically or 

during planned surveys for tracking 

marked polar bears and detecting polar 

bear dens. However, these sites are only 

a small percentage of the total active 

polar bear dens for the SBS stock in any 

given year. Each year, many entities 

conducting operations on the North 

Slope coordinate with the FWS to 

conduct surveys to determine the 

location of any polar bear dens that may 

be located in close proximity to any of 

the operator’s planned activities for that 

denning season. Under past IHAs and 

ITRs (Incidental Take Regulations), 

operators have been required to avoid 

known polar bear dens by 1.6 km (1 mi). 

However, an unknown polar bear den 

may be encountered during the BLM’s 

activities. In instances when a 

previously unknown den was 

discovered near human activity, the 

FWS has implemented mitigation 

measures such as a 1.6-km (1-mi) 

activity exclusion zone around the den 

and 24-hour monitoring of the den site. 

The responses of denning polar bears 

to disturbance and the consequences of 

these responses can vary throughout the 

denning process. We divide the denning 

period into four stages when 

considering impacts of disturbance: den 

establishment, early denning, late 

denning, and post-emergence; 

definitions and descriptions are 

provided by Woodruff et al. (2022) and 

are also located in the 2021–2026 

Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 

5, 2021). The stage at which harassment 

occurs defines the level of disturbance 

response (Level B harassment, Level A 

harassment, or Lethal) attributed to 

either the sow or cub(s), along with the 

probability of the specific response 

occurring (see Denning Analysis). 

Impacts of the Specified Activities on 

Polar Bear Prey Species 

Information on the potential impacts 

of the specified activities on polar bear 

prey species can be found in the 

supplemental information to this 

document (available as described in 

ADDRESSES). 

Estimated Take 

Definitions of Incidental Take Under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Below we provide definitions of three 

types of take of polar bears. The FWS 

does not anticipate and is not 

authorizing either Level A harassment 

or lethal take as a part of this proposed 

IHA; however, the definitions of these 

take types are provided for context and 

background. 

Lethal Take 

Human activity may result in 

biologically significant impacts to polar 

bears. In the most serious interactions 

(e.g., vehicle collision, running over an 

unknown den causing its collapse), 

human actions can result in the 

mortality of polar bears. We also note 

that, while not considered incidental, in 

situations where there is an imminent 

threat to human life, polar bears may be 

killed. Additionally, though not 

considered incidental, polar bears have 

been accidentally killed during efforts to 

deter polar bears from a work area for 

safety and from direct chemical 

exposure (81 FR 52276, August 5, 2016). 

Unintentional disturbance of a female 

polar bear by human activity during the 

denning season may cause the female 

either to abandon her den prematurely 

with cubs or abandon her cubs in the 

den before the cubs can survive on their 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2724 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

own. Either scenario may result in the 

incidental lethal take of the cubs. 

Level A Harassment 

Human activity may result in the 

injury of polar bears. Level A 

harassment, for nonmilitary readiness 

activities, is defined as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has 

the potential to injure a marine mammal 

or marine mammal stock in the wild. 

Numerous actions can cause take by 

Level A harassment of polar bear cubs 

during the denning period, such as 

creating a disturbance that separates 

mothers from dependent cubs (Amstrup 

2003), inducing early den emergence 

during the late denning period 

(Amstrup and Gardner 1994; Rode et al. 

2018), instigating early departure from 

the den site during the post-emergence 

period (Andersen et al. 2024), or 

repeatedly interrupting the nursing or 

resting of cubs to the extent that it 

impacts the cubs’ body condition. 

Level B Harassment 

Level B harassment for nonmilitary 

readiness activities means any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, feeding, 

or sheltering. Changes in behavior that 

disrupt biologically significant 

behaviors or activities for the affected 

animal are indicative of take by Level B 

harassment under the MMPA. Such 

reactions include, but are not limited to, 

the following: 

• Fleeing (running or swimming away 

from a human or a human activity); 

• Displaying a stress-related behavior 

such as jaw or lip-popping, front leg 

stomping, vocalizations, circling, 

intense staring, or salivating; 

• Abandoning or avoiding preferred 

movement corridors such as ice floes, 

leads, polynyas, a segment of coastline, 

or barrier islands; 

• Using a longer or more difficult 

route of travel instead of the intended 

path; 

• Interrupting breeding, sheltering, or 

feeding; 

• Moving away at a fast pace (adult) 

and cubs struggling to keep up; 

• Temporary, short-term cessation of 

nursing or resting (cubs); 

• Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a 

prolonged period (adults); 

• Loss of hunting opportunity due to 

disturbance of prey; or 

• Any interruption in normal denning 

behavior that does not cause injury, den 

abandonment, or early departure of the 

female with cubs from the den site. 

This list is not meant to encompass all 

possible behaviors; other behavioral 

responses may be indicative of take by 

Level B harassment. Relatively minor 

changes in behavior such as the animal 

raising its head or temporarily changing 

its direction of travel are not likely to 

disrupt biologically important 

behavioral patterns, and the FWS does 

not view such minor changes in 

behavior as indicative of a take by Level 

B harassment. It is also important to 

note that eliciting behavioral responses 

that equate to take by Level B 

harassment repeatedly may result in 

Level A harassment. 

Surface Interactions 

We analyzed take by Level B 

harassment for polar bears that may 

potentially be encountered and 

impacted during the BLM’s oil well 

plugging and reclamation, soil 

sampling, snow trail, pad, and airstrip 

construction, and summer cleanup 

activities within the specified 

geographic region. 

Impact Area 

To assess the area of potential impact 

from the project activities, we calculate 

the area affected by project activities 

where harassment is possible. We refer 

to this area as an impact area. 

Behavioral response rates of polar bears 

to disturbances are highly variable, and 

data to support the relationship between 

distance to polar bears and disturbance 

are limited. Dyck and Baydack (2004) 

found sex-based differences in the 

frequencies of vigilance bouts, which 

involves an animal raising its head to 

visually scan its surroundings, by polar 

bears in the presence of vehicles on the 

tundra. However, in their summary of 

polar bear behavioral response to icebreaking vessels in the Chukchi Sea, 

Smultea et al. (2016) found no 

difference between reactions of males, 

females with cubs, or females without 

cubs. During the FWS’s coastal aerial 

surveys, 99 percent of polar bears that 

responded in a way that indicated 

possible Level B harassment (polar bears 

that were running when detected or 

began to run or swim in response to the 

aircraft) did so within 1.6 km (1 mi), as 

measured from the ninetieth percentile 

horizontal detection distance from the 

flight line. Similarly, Andersen and 

Aars (2008) found that female polar 

bears with cubs (the most conservative 

group observed) began to walk or run 

away from approaching snowmobiles at 

a mean distance of 1,534 m (0.95 mi). 

Thus, while future research into the 

reaction of polar bears to anthropogenic 

disturbance may indicate a different 

zone of potential impact is appropriate, 

the current literature suggests that the 

1.6-km (1.0-mi) impact area will 

encompass most surface polar bear 

harassment events. 

Estimated Harassment 

We estimated Level B harassment 

using the spatio-temporally specific 

encounter rates and temporally specific 

harassment rates derived in the 2021– 

2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, 

August 5, 2021) in conjunction with the 

specified project activity information. 

Some portion of SBS bears may occur 

within the Chukchi Sea at a given time. 

However, the ITR rates do not explicitly 

account for this possibility, and the 

project area for this proposed IHA 

occurs only within the geographical 

boundary of the SBS subpopulation. 

Therefore, our analyses account only for 

SBS bears located within the SBS 

subpopulation boundary. Distribution 

patterns of polar bears along the coast of 

the SBS were estimated in Wilson et al. 

(2017) by dividing the North Slope 

Coastline into 10 equally sized grids and 

applying a Bayesian hierarchical model 

based on 14 years of aerial surveys in 

late summer and early fall. Wilson et al. 

(2017) estimated 140 polar bears per 

week along the coastline (a 

measurement that included barrier 

islands); however, not with uniform 

distributions. The study found that 

disproportionately high densities of 

bears occur in grids 6 and 9, which 

contain known large congregating areas 

such as Kaktovik and Cross Island; thus, 

the study has required polar bear 

density correction of factors in 

previously issued incidental take 

authorizations (ITAs). The vast majority 

of the coastline within the project area 

in this proposed IHA falls within grids 

1–4 (although a small portion of the 

project area is located outside of Wilson 

et al.’s (2017) study area near the City 

of Wainwright). The Wilson et al. (2017) 

values for grids 1–4 are similar to those 

in the North Slope area where the 2021– 

2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, 

August 5, 2021) encounter rates were 

developed; therefore, we believe those 

values are applicable to the project area 

in this proposed IHA and do not require 

any correction factor for polar bear 

densities in our analyses. 

TABLE 2—DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES

USED IN HARASSMENT ESTIMATES

OF POLAR BEARS ON THE COAST OF

THE NORTH SLOPE OF ALASKA

Variable Definition 

Bes ........ Bears encountered in an impact 

area for the entire season. 

ac .......... Coastal exposure area. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2725 

TABLE 2—DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES

USED IN HARASSMENT ESTIMATES

OF POLAR BEARS ON THE COAST OF

THE NORTH SLOPE OF ALASKA— 

Continued 

Variable Definition 

ai .......... Inland exposure area. 

ro .......... Occupancy rate. 

eco ........ Coastal open-water season bearencounter 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 harassment rate. 

to ........... Open-water season harassment 

rate. 

Bt .......... Number of estimated Level B harassment events. 

Table 2 provides the definition for 

each variable used in the formulas to 

calculate the number of potential 

harassment events. The variables 

defined in table 2 were used in a series 

of formulas to ultimately estimate the 

total harassment from surface-level 

interactions. Encounter rates were 

originally calculated as polar bears 

encountered per square km per season. 

As a part of their Request, the BLM 

provided the FWS with digital 

geospatial files that included the 

maximum expected human occupancy 

(i.e., rate of occupancy [ro] for each 

individual structure (e.g., snow trails, 

snow pads) of their specified activities 

for each season of the IHA period. Using 

the buffer tool in ArcGIS, we created a 

spatial file of a 3.2-km (2-mi) buffer 

around all snow trails (3.2 km on either 

side of the proposed snow trail center 

line, i.e., 6.4 km [4 mi] total diameter) 

to account for up to 1.6-km (1-mi) 

deviations from the proposed center line 

of the routes, and around both well sites 

to account for the presently 

undetermined camp locations (within 

1.6 km [1 mi] of well head). 

Additionally, we placed a 1.6-km (1-mi) 

buffer around all lakes that may be 

potentially utilized during operations. 

We binned the structures according to 

their seasonal occupancy rates by 

rounding them up into tenths (10 

percent, 20 percent, etc.). We 

determined the impact area of each bin 

by first calculating the area within the 

buffers of 100-percent occupancy 

locations. We then removed the area of 

the 100-percent occupancy buffers from 

the project impact area and calculated 

the area within the 90-percent 

occupancy buffers. This iterative 

process continued until we calculated 

the area within all buffers. The areas of 

impact were then clipped by coastal and 

inland zone geospatial files to determine 

the coastal areas of impact (ac) and 

inland areas of impact (ai) for each 

occupancy bin. This process was 

repeated for both seasons (ice season 

and open-water [ice-free] season). 

Impact areas were multiplied by the 

appropriate encounter rate to obtain the 

number of polar bears expected to be 

encountered in the impact area per 

season (Bes). Equation 1 provides an 

example of the calculation of polar bears 

encountered in the ice season for an 

impact area in the coastal zone. 

Equation 1 

Bes = ac * eci

To generate the number of estimated 

Level B harassments for each area of 

interest, we multiplied the number of 

polar bears in the area of interest per 

season by the proportion of the season 

the area is occupied, the rate of 

occupancy, and the harassment rate 

(equation 2). 

Equation 2 

Bt = Bes * Sp * ro * ti

Aircraft Impacts on Polar Bears 

Polar bears in the project area will 

likely be exposed to the visual and 

auditory stimulation associated with the 

applicant’s fixed-wing and helicopter 

activities; however, these impacts are 

likely to be minimal and short-term. 

Aircraft activities may cause disruptions 

in the normal behavioral patterns of 

polar bears as either an auditory or 

visual stimulus, thereby resulting in 

incidental Level B harassment. To 

reduce the likelihood that polar bears 

are disturbed by aircraft, mitigation 

measures, such as minimum flight 

altitudes over polar bears and 

restrictions on sudden changes to 

aircraft movements and direction, will 

be required if this authorization is 

finalized. Once mitigated, such 

disturbances are expected to have no 

more than short-term, temporary, and 

minor impacts on individual polar 

bears. 

Estimating Harassment Rates of Aircraft 

Activities 

Harassment rates during aircraft 

activities were estimated using results 

from studies of fixed-wing aircraft and 

helicopter overflights (Quigley 2022; 

Quigley et al. 2024). In these studies, 

aerial searches along the northern coast 

of Alaska between Point Barrow and the 

western Canadian border were flown 

and polar bears were approached at 

different altitudes. Polar bears that did 

not exhibit behavioral changes 

consistent with harassment were then 

re-approached at progressively lower 

altitudes, reaching as low as 38 m (100 

ft). Researchers recorded behavioral 

changes during these approaches and 

evaluated if and when Level B 

harassment occurred. Covariates 

examined were polar bear location 

(‘‘barrier island’’ or ‘‘mainland’’), initial 

behavior (‘‘active’’ or ‘‘inactive’’), group 

size, whether the polar bear belonged to 

a family group, and the number of 

previous overflights (i.e., how many 

times the group was re-approached to 

elicit a behavioral change). A Bayesian 

imputation approach accounted for 

polar bears that exhibited a behavioral 

change consistent with harassment on 

their first approach, thus lacking an 

identified altitude at which no 

harassment occurred due to a lack of a 

‘‘non-harassment’’ observation. Their 

final model included location, activity 

level, and the number of previous 

overflights as predictors of the altitude 

at which a polar bear was harassed. For 

our aircraft impacts analysis, we used 

harassment rates estimated for active 

polar bears observed on barrier islands, 

as they had the highest rates of 

harassment. We further assumed that no 

previous overflights were conducted. 

We provide harassment rates for the 

following five categories of flights: takeoffs, landings, low-altitude flights 

(defined as those between 122 m [400 ft] 

and 305 m [1,000 ft] altitude), midaltitude flights (defined as those 

between 305 m [1,000 ft] and 457 m 

[1,500 ft] altitude), and high-altitude 

flights (defined as those between 457 m 

[1,500 ft] and 610 m [2,000 ft] altitude). 

Harassment rates were assigned to each 

of these flight categories using the 

harassment rate for the lowest altitude 

in the category (e.g., for low-altitude 

flights, the harassment rate estimated for 

122 m [400 ft] was used). This binning 

method of using the lowest altitude 

harassment rate in the bin allowed our 

estimates to be inclusive of possible 

changes in altitude due to variable flight 

conditions (table 3). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2726 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

TABLE 3—HARASSMENT RATES FOR THE FIVE CATEGORIES OF FLIGHTS FOR FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT AND HELICOPTER

OVERFLIGHTS

Flight category Fixed-wing Helicopter 

Take-offs .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.99 >0.99 

Landings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.99 >0.99 

Low-Altitude Flights (122–305 m) .................................................................................................................................... 0.86 >0.99 

Mid-Altitude Flights (305–457 m) .................................................................................................................................... 0.03 0.82 

High-Altitude Flights (457–610 m) ................................................................................................................................... <0.01 0.05 

Note: The rate in this table are based on Quigley et al. (2024). 

We used the harassment rate associated with 30 m (100 ft) for take-offs and landings. 

Estimating Area of Impact for Aircraft 

Activities 

For each category of the flight path 

(i.e., take-off, low-altitude travel, midaltitude travel, high-altitude travel, and 

landing), we calculated an impact area 

and duration of impact using flight 

hours or flight path information 

provided in the Request. We used flights 

logs available through FlightAware 

(https://www.flightaware.com/), a 

website that maintains flight logs in the 

public domain, to estimate impact areas 

and flight hours for take-offs and 

landings. We estimated a take-off 

distance of 2.41 km (1.5 mi) that would 

be impacted for 10 minutes. We 

estimated a landing distance of 4.83 km 

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

that would be impacted for 10 minutes 

per landing. To estimate the impact area 

of traveling segments, we subtracted the 

take-off and landing areas from the total 

area of the flight path. The duration of 

impact for traveling flights was either 

provided in the Request or calculated 

using the length of the flight and a 

conservative flight speed of 129 km per 

hour (80 mi per hour), which was 

approximately 1.5 minutes per 3.22 km 

(2 mi) of the flight path. 

All take-offs, landings, and traveling 

segments were then spatially referenced 

to determine whether they were within 

the coastal or inland zones. The coastal 

zone is defined as the offshore and 

onshore areas within 2 km (1.2 mi) of 

the coastline, and the inland zone is 

defined as the onshore area greater than 

2 km (1.2 mi) from the coastline. If no 

location or flight hour information was 

provided, flight paths were 

approximated based on the information 

provided in the Request. Of the flight 

paths that were described clearly or 

were addressed through assumptions, 

we marked the approximate flight path 

take-off and landing locations using 

ArcGIS Pro, and the flight paths were 

drawn. Once spatially referenced, all 

flight paths were buffered by 1.6 km (1 

mi), which is consistent with aircraft 

surveys conducted by the FWS and 

USGS between August and October 

during most years from 2000 to 2014 

(Schliebe et al. 2008; Atwood et al. 

2015; Wilson et al. 2017). In these 

surveys, 99 percent of groups of polar 

bears that exhibited behavioral 

responses consistent with Level B 

harassment were observed within 1.6 

km (1 mi) of the aircraft. 

TABLE 4—SEASONAL POLAR BEAR ENCOUNTER RATES BY ZONE

Coastal Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate 

Ice Season (July 19–November 11) .............................................................................................................................. 0.05 bears/km2. 

Open-water Season (November 12–July 18) ................................................................................................................ 1.48 bears/km2. 

Inland Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate 

Ice Season (July 19–November 11) .............................................................................................................................. 0.004 bears/km2. 

Open-water Season (November 12–July 18) ................................................................................................................ 0.005 bears/km2. 

Note: This table is adapted from the 2021–2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021). 

To calculate the total number of Level 

B harassment events estimated due to 

the specified activities, we calculated 

the number of flight hours for each 

flight category (i.e., take-offs, lowaltitude travel, mid-altitude travel, highaltitude travel, and landings) for each 

zone and season combination. These 

values were then used to calculate the 

proportion of the season that aircraft 

occupied their impact areas (i.e., take-off 

area, landing area, or traveling segment 

impact areas). This proportion-of-season 

metric is equivalent to the occupancy 

rate (ro) generated for surface-level 

interaction harassment estimates. The 

total impact area for each of the flight 

categories was multiplied by the zone 

and season-specific polar bear 

encounter rate to determine the number 

of polar bears expected in that area for 

the season (i.e., Bes, as seen in equation 

1). This number was then multiplied by 

the proportion of the season to 

determine the number of polar bears 

expected in that area when flights are 

occurring, and the appropriate 

harassment rate based on flight altitude 

to estimate the number of polar bears 

that may be harassed as a result of the 

flights (as seen in equation 2). Table 5 

shows a summary of aircraft operations 

during the specified activities and the 

values used to estimate Level B 

harassment of polar bears during aircraft 

operations. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2727 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BY SEASON AND ACTIVITY DURING THE PROPOSED IHA PERIOD

Activity 

Ice season (fixed-wing aircraft only) Open-water season (helicopter only) 

Winter support— 

Cape Halkett 

Winter support— 

Fish Creek 

Site 

inspection— 

Deadhorse to 

Cape Halkett 

Site inspection— 

Deadhorse to 

Fish Creek 

Site Inspection— 

Cape Halkett to 

Fish Creek 

Snow trail 

inspection 

and cleanup 

Altitude * .................................................................. High ................... High ................... High ................. High ................... High ................... Low 

Total Flights ............................................................ 25 ...................... 25 ...................... 6 ...................... 5 ........................ 2 ........................ 12 

Proportion of Season .............................................. 0.0026 ............... 0.0021 ............... 0.0020 ............. 0.0012 ............... 0.00017 ............. 0.01887 

Proportion of Flight in Coastal Zone ...................... 0.60 ................... 0 ........................ .60 ................... 0 ........................ 0.51 ................... 0.26 

Proportion of Flight in Inland Zone ......................... 0.40 ................... 1 ........................ .40 ................... 1 ........................ 0.49 ................... 0.74 

Total Encounter Rate (bears/km2/season) ** .......... 0.0316 ............... 0.004 ................. 0.89 ................. 0.005 ................. 0.7573 ............... 0.3885 

Harassment Rate .................................................... 0.001 ................. 0.001 ................. 0.05 ................. 0.05 ................... 0.05 ................... 0.99 

Flight Time Harassment ......................................... 6.570 × 10¥07 ... 6.744 × 10¥08 ... 0.000643 ......... 2.440 × 10¥06 ... 5.295 × 10¥05 ... 0.05909 

Total Takeoffs and Landings .................................. 50 ...................... 50 ...................... 12 .................... 10 ...................... 4 ........................ 24 

Landing Time/Season ............................................. 0.001389 ........... 0.001389 ........... 0.000725 ......... 0.000604 ........... 0.000242 ........... 0.001449 

Landing Time Harassment ..................................... 0.0016283 ......... 0.0016283 ......... 0.025146 ......... 0.020955 ........... 0.008382 ........... 0.0502921 

Takeoff Time/Season .............................................. 0.001389 ........... 0.001389 ........... 0.000725 ......... 0.000604 ........... 0.000241 ........... 0.001449 

Takeoff Time Harassment ...................................... 0.001094 ........... 0.001094 ........... 0.016893 ......... 0.014078 ........... 0.00563 ............. 0.03379 

Number Level B Harassment of Activity ................ 0.002723 ........... 0.002723 ........... 0.042683 ......... 0.035035 ........... 0.014066 ........... 0.143164 

Total number of level B harassment events across all aircraft activities ..................................................... 0.240.

* High-altitude flight is defined as between 457 m [1,500 ft] and 610 m [2,000 ft] altitude. Low altitude is defined as between 122 m [400 ft] and 305 m [1,000 ft] altitude. There are no mid-altitude flights considered for this project. 

** Accounts for unequal encounter rates over coastal and inland zones. 

Estimated Harassment From Aircraft 

Activities 

Using the approaches described 

above, we estimated the total number of 

polar bears expected to be harassed by 

the aircraft activities during the 

proposed IHA period as a total of one 

bear (table 5). 

Denning Analysis 

Below we provide a complete 

description and results of the polar bear 

den simulation model used to assess 

impacts to denning polar bears from 

disturbance associated with all phases 

of the specified activities. In our 

denning analysis, we used the analytical 

method described in the 2023–2024 

BLM IHA (88 FR 88943, December 26, 

2023). 

Additionally, on March 19, 2024, 

regulations promulgated in the 2021– 

2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, 

August 5, 2021) were challenged in 

Federal Court and the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeal issued a remand to 

FWS to conduct certain additional 

analysis. As a result of the Court’s 

remand and ongoing scientific 

advancements, the FWS reexamined the 

denning analysis and incorporated 

newly available data since 2021 into the 

denning analysis model, allowing the 

continued inclusion of best available 

scientific information. Updates 

incorporated into the model adjust the 

impact area that can result in den 

disturbance, the probabilities of 

disturbance, and how FWS reports 

probabilities of different levels of take, 

i.e., Level B harassment, Level A 

harassment, and lethal take. Alterations 

to the denning model are described in 

greater detail below. 

Den Simulation 

We simulated dens across the entire 

North Slope of Alaska, ranging from the 

areas identified as denning habitat 

(Durner et al. 2006, 2013; Durner and 

Atwood 2018) contained within the 

National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska 

(NPR–A) in the west to the Canadian 

border in the east. To simulate dens on 

the landscape, we relied on the 

estimated number of dens in three 

different regions of northern Alaska 

provided by Atwood et al. (2020). These 

included the NPR–A, the area between 

the Colville and Canning Rivers (CC), 

and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR). Den simulations for this 

proposed IHA were conducted 

following the exact methodology 

described previously in the 2023–2024 

BLM IHA (88 FR 88943, December 26, 

2023). 

Impact Area of Specified Activities 

The model developed by Wilson and 

Durner (2020) provides a template for 

estimating the level of potential impact 

on denning polar bears during the 

specified activities while also 

considering the natural denning ecology 

of polar bears in the region. Previous 

iterations of the denning analysis 

model, including those utilized in the 

2021–2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 

42982, August 5, 2021) and 2023–2024 

BLM IHA (88 FR 88943, December 26, 

2023), assumed that during all denning 

periods, any polar bears within dens 

within 1.6 km (1 mi) from project 

activities could exhibit a disturbance 

response if exposed to industrial 

stimuli. However, for this IHA, we 

refined that broad assumption to 

account for denning data that have been 

collected subsequent to the 

promulgation of the 2021–2026 Beaufort 

Sea ITR. Since 2021, four known dens 

(monitored in 2022 and 2023) have 

occurred near human activity. Of the 

four newly observed dens, three were 

extremely close to human activity (<50 

m), yet the sows remained in their dens 

until the late denning period. We 

updated polar bear disturbance 

probabilities and litter size distributions 

with the information from these dens, 

then re-examined the historic dens that 

were used to create disturbance 

probabilities. We found that the 

distances between human activity and 

polar bear dens during the early 

denning period were considerably 

closer than those observed during other 

denning periods. Specifically, of the 15 

dens within the case studies that were 

exposed to human activity during the 

early denning period, only one was 

potentially disturbed at a distance 

greater than 800 meters. This single den 

record also had imprecise information 

on the distance to human activity, so 

activity was assumed to occur within 

1,610 m of the den and was likely 

closer. The historic dens analyzed 

during the den establishment, late 

denning, and post-emergence periods 

did not follow this pattern. For those 

dens, disturbance distances commonly 

exceeded 805 m. Evidence derived from 

dens exposed to human activity during 

the early denning period, including both 

new den records and historic dens, 

illustrates the reluctance of sows to 

abandon their maternal den/cubs in 

response to exposure to stimuli from 

nearby activity, and supports the 

concept that sows may be more risk 

tolerant during the early denning 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2728 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

period. Additionally, sows may be less 

affected by sound from outside activities 

during the early denning period because 

dens are typically closed during that 

time, which can affect propagation of 

noise into the den (Owen et al. 2020). 

Given this evidence, we modified the 

denning analysis model to adjust the 

impact area for the early denning period 

to range from 0 to 805 m. As a result, 

dens that were simulated to be within 

805 m of human activity could be 

disturbed during all denning periods, 

while dens between 806 and 1610 m 

way from human activity could only be 

disturbed during the den establishment, 

late denning, and post-emergence 

periods. 

AIR Surveys 

We assumed that all remediation and 

transit areas that will be utilized during 

denning season would have two AIR 

surveys flown prior to beginning any 

operations (figure 1). The first survey 

would occur between December 1 and 

December 25, 2024, and the second 

survey between December 15, 2024, and 

January 10, 2025, with a minimum of 24 

hours between surveys. During each 

iteration of the model, each AIR survey 

was randomly assigned a probability of 

detecting dens using detection 

probabilities previously described in the 

2023–2024 BLM IHA (88 FR 88943, 

December 26, 2023). 

Model Implementation 

For each iteration of the model, we 

first determined which dens were 

exposed to the specified activities. Dens 

that were simulated to be within 805 m 

(2,641 ft) of human activity could be 

disturbed during all denning periods, 

while dens within 806–1610 m (2,644– 

5,282 ft) of human activity could only 

be disturbed during the den 

establishment, late denning, and postemergence periods. Dens detected 

during AIR survey were excluded if 

activity did not occur prior to AIR 

survey. We identified the stage in the 

denning period when the exposure 

occurred based on the date range of the 

activities the den was exposed to: den 

establishment (i.e., initial entrance into 

den until cubs are born), early denning 

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

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

days old until den emergence) and postemergence (i.e., the date of den 

emergence until permanent departure 

from the den site). We then determined 

whether the exposure elicited a 

response by the denning polar bear 

based on probabilities derived from the 

reviewed case studies (Woodruff et al. 

2022a), which were updated with data 

from the dens monitored in 2022 and 

2023 using the methods described in 

Woodruff et al. (2022a). 

Specifically, we divided the number 

of cases that documented responses 

associated with either a Level B 

harassment (i.e., potential to cause a 

disruption of behavioral patterns), Level 

A harassment (i.e., potential to injure an 

animal), or lethal take (e.g., cub 

abandonment) of polar bears by the total 

number of cases with that combination 

of period and exposure type (table 6). 

Level B harassment was applicable to 

both adults and cubs, if present, 

whereas Level A harassment and lethal 

take were applicable to only cubs. AIR 

surveys were not considered to be a 

source of potential impact. In thousands 

of hours of AIR surveys conducted in 

northern Alaska over the last decade, we 

are not aware of a single instance of a 

polar bear abandoning its den during 

the early denning period due to an AIR 

survey overflight. These responses 

would be readily observable on the 

thermal cameras, and the fact that none 

have been observed indicates that den 

abandonment very likely does not occur 

given the brief duration of the aircraft 

overflight and the distance and altitude 

of the aircraft from the den site. Recent 

peer-reviewed research further supports 

the model assumption that AIR surveys 

are not a source of harassment (Quigley 

et al. 2024). 

For dens exposed to activity, we used 

a multinomial distribution with the 

probabilities of different levels of take 

for that period (table 6) to determine 

whether a den was disturbed or not. If 

a 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 impact associated with a 

disturbance varied according to the 

severity and timing of the exposure 

(table 6). Exposures that resulted in 

emergence from dens prior to cubs 

reaching 60 days of age were considered 

lethal takes of cubs. If an exposure 

resulted in a Level A harassment during 

the late denning period, we first 

assigned that den a new random 

emergence date from a uniform 

distribution that ranged between the 

first date of exposure during the late 

denning period and the original den 

emergence date. We then determined 

whether that den was disturbed during 

the post-emergence period, but the 

probability of disturbance was 

dependent on whether or not a den was 

disturbed (i.e., Level A harassment) 

during the late denning period (table 6). 

If an exposure resulted in a Level A 

harassment during the post-emergence 

period, we assigned the den a new time 

spent at the den site post-emergence 

from a uniform distribution that ranged 

from 0 to the original simulated time at 

the den post-emergence. 

Recent research suggests that litter 

survival is related to the date of den 

emergence and time spent at the den 

post-emergence (Andersen et al. 2024), 

with litters having higher survival rates 

the later they emerge in the spring, and 

the longer they spend at the den site 

after emergence. To determine whether 

dens that were disturbed during the late 

denning and/or post-emergence 

period(s) experienced Level A 

harassment, we relied on estimates of 

litter survival until approximately 100 

days post emergence, derived from the 

analysis of empirical data on the dates 

of emergence from the den and 

departure from the den site (Anderson 

et al. 2024). These estimates are 

dependent on the date of emergence and 

time spent at the den site postemergence. For each den disturbed 

during the late denning and/or postemergence periods, we obtained a 

random sample of regression 

coefficients from the posterior 

distribution and calculated the 

probability of a litter surviving 

approximately 100 days post-emergence 

with the following equation: 

logit(s) = b0 + b1emerge + b2depart 

where s is the probability of at least one cub 

being alive approximately 100 days postemergence, b0 is the intercept coefficient, b1

is the coefficient associated with the Julian 

date of emergence (emerge), and b2 is the 

coefficient associated with the number of 

days the family group stayed at the den site 

post-emergence before departing (depart). 

These probabilities are based on estimates of 

litter survival derived from the analysis of 

empirical data on the dates of emergence 

from the den and departure from the den site 

(Anderson et al. 2024). 

We developed the code to run this 

model in program R (R Core 

Development Team 2020) and ran 

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

Monte Carlo simulation) to derive the 

estimated number of dens disturbed and 

associated levels of harassment. We 

then determined the number of cubs 

that would have lethal take, Level A 

harassment, and Level B harassment, 

and the number of females that would 

experience Level B harassment. Table 6 

shows the probability of an exposure 

resulting in the types of harassment of 

denning polar bears. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2729 

TABLE 6—PROBABILITY THAT AN EXPOSURE ELICITED A RESPONSE BY DENNING POLAR BEARS THAT WOULD RESULT IN

LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, LETHAL TAKE, OR NO TAKE

Denning period 

None 

(sow or 

cub(s)) 

Level B 

(sow) 

Level B 

(cub(s)) 

Level A 

(cub(s)) 

Lethal 

(cub(s)) 

Den Establishment ................................................................................... 0.750 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Early Denning .......................................................................................... 0.860 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.130 

Late Denning ........................................................................................... 0.510 0.490 0.000 0.490 0.000 

Post Emergence—Previously Undisturbed Den ...................................... 0.000 1.000 0.200 0.800 0.000 

Post Emergence—Previously Disturbed Den .......................................... 0.000 1.000 0.474 0.526 0.000 

Note: Level B harassment was applicable to both adults and cubs, if present; Level A harassment and lethal take were applicable to cubs only 

and were not possible during the den establishment period, which ended with the birth of the cubs. Probabilities were calculated from the analysis of 60 case studies of polar bear responses to human activity. During the early denning period, there was no Level A harassment for cubs, 

only lethal take. We provide two sets of take probabilities for the post-emergence period. The first (Post-emergence—Undisturbed) is the set of 

probabilities when a den has not been disturbed during the late denning period. The second (Post-emergence—Disturbed) is the set of probabilities for a den that was disturbed during the late denning period (Rode et al. 2018; Andersen et al. 2024). 

Model Results 

Our analysis estimates a mean of 1.36 

(median = 1; 95 percent CI: 0–4) landbased dens in the project area will 

potentially be exposed to disturbance 

from the specified activities during the 

1-year period of the proposed IHA. Our 

den simulation analysis predicts this 

degree of potential exposure will have a 

zero (0) percent chance of incurring 

Level B harassment. Furthermore, our 

analysis predicts a zero (0) percent 

probability of the BLM’s specified 

activities resulting in either Level A 

harassment or lethal take during the 1- 

year period of the proposed IHA. 

Critical Assumptions 

To conduct this analysis and estimate 

the potential amount of Level B 

harassment, Level A harassment, and 

lethal take, we made several critical 

assumptions. 

Level B harassment is equated herein 

with behavioral responses that indicate 

harassment or disturbance, but not to 

the extent that cause the animal to 

experience significant biological 

consequences. Our estimates do not 

account for variable responses by polar 

bear age and sex; however, sensitivity of 

denning polar bears was incorporated 

into the analysis. The available 

information suggests that polar bears are 

generally resilient to low levels of 

disturbance. Females with dependent 

young and juvenile polar bears are 

physiologically the most sensitive 

(Andersen and Aars 2008) and most 

likely to experience harassment from 

disturbance. Not enough information on 

composition of the SBS polar bear stock 

in the specified project area is available 

to incorporate individual variability 

based on age and sex or to predict its 

influence on harassment estimates. Our 

estimates are derived from a variety of 

sample populations with various age 

and sex structures, and we assume the 

exposed population will have a similar 

composition, and that, therefore, the 

response rates are applicable. 

The estimates of behavioral response 

presented here do not account for the 

individual movements of animals in 

response to the specified activities. Our 

assessment assumes animals remain 

stationary (i.e., density does not 

change). Not enough information is 

available about the movement of polar 

bears in response to specific 

disturbances to refine this assumption. 

The SBS polar bears create maternal 

dens on the sea ice as well as on land. 

The den simulation used in our analysis 

does not simulate dens on the sea ice. 

However, the specified activities will be 

conducted entirely on land and only a 

small percentage of the activities will 

occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the 

coastline. Therefore, the impact of the 

activities will be primarily limited to 

land-based dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) of 

the project impact areas used during 

denning season. Additionally, this 

impact area will be surveyed during AIR 

surveys to mitigate impacts on denning 

polar bears. 

The specific combination of snow 

trail segments depicted in figure 1 that 

will be used for mobilization, resupply, 

and backhauling is not currently known. 

For the purposes of the above analyses 

and estimates of take by Level B and 

Level A harassment, and the risks of 

lethal take, we assumed that all routes 

within the AIR surveyed section (figure 

1) of the project might potentially be 

used at some point during the denning 

season. This assumption results in a 

very conservative estimate of take for 

the 1-year IHA period that accounts for 

all possible operational scenarios. 

Sum of Harassment From All Sources 

Our analyses quantified the total 

number of Level B harassment, Level A 

harassment, and lethal take likely to 

result from the BLM’s specified 

activities. We evaluated three potential 

sources of harassment/take, including 

surface interactions, aircraft overflights, 

and den disturbance of sows and/or 

cubs in our analyses. A summary of 

total estimated take via Level B 

harassment during the project by source 

is provided in table 7. We do not 

anticipate take by Level A harassment or 

lethal take to occur. 

TABLE 7—TOTAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY HARASSMENT OF POLAR BEARS, BY SOURCE

Source and type of harassment 

Number of 

estimated 

harassments 

Bears on the surface—summer—Level B harassment ................................................................................................................. 1 

Bears on the surface—winter—Level B harassment .................................................................................................................... 10 

Aircraft activities—summer and winter—Level B harassment ...................................................................................................... 1 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2730 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

Determinations and Findings 

In making these draft findings, we 

considered the best available scientific 

information, including: the biological 

and behavioral characteristics of polar 

bears, the most recent information on 

polar bear distribution and abundance 

within the area of the specified 

activities, the current and expected 

future status of the stock (including 

existing and foreseeable human and 

natural stressors), the potential sources 

of disturbance caused by the project, 

and the potential responses of polar 

bears to this disturbance. In addition, 

we reviewed applicant-provided 

materials, information in our files and 

datasets, and published reference 

materials, and consulted with species 

experts. 

Small Numbers 

For our small numbers determination, 

we consider whether the estimated 

number of polar bears to be subjected to 

incidental take is small relative to the 

population size of the species or stock. 

1. We estimate that BLM’s proposed 

specified activities in the specified 

geographic region will cause the take of 

no more than 12 polar bears by Level B 

harassment during the 1-year period of 

this proposed IHA (table 7). Take of 12 

animals is 1.32 percent of the best 

available estimate of the current SBS 

stock size of 907 animals (Bromaghin et 

al. 2015; Atwood et al. 2020) ((12÷907) 

× 100 ≈ 1.32 percent) and represents a 

‘‘small number’’ of polar bears of that 

stock. 

2. The footprint of the specified 

activities within the specified 

geographic region is extremely small 

relative to the range of the SBS stock of 

polar bears. Polar bears from the SBS 

stock occur well beyond the boundaries 

of the proposed IHA region. As such, 

the IHA boundaries represent only a 

minute subset of the potential area in 

which the polar bear may occur. Thus, 

the FWS concludes that a small portion 

of the SBS polar bear populations may 

be present in the specified geographic 

region during the time of the specified 

activities. 

Small Numbers Conclusion 

We propose a finding that take of up 

to 12 SBS polar bears represents a small 

number of the SBS stock of polar bears. 

Negligible Impact 

For our negligible impacts 

determination, we consider the 

following: 

1. The distribution and habitat use 

patterns of polar bears indicate that 

relatively few polar bears will occur in 

the specified areas of activity at any 

time and, therefore, few polar bears are 

likely to be affected. 

2. The documented impacts of 

previous activities, including the 2023– 

2024 BLM IHA (88 FR 88943), similar to 

the specified activities on polar bears, 

and, taking into consideration the 

baseline of existing impacts from factors 

such as oil and gas activities in the area 

and other ongoing or proposed ITAs, 

suggests that the types of activities 

analyzed for this proposed IHA will 

have minimal effects on polar bears. 

Additionally, the effects will be limited 

to short-term, temporary behavioral 

changes, or minor injury. Furthermore, 

our analyses do not indicate, nor do we 

anticipate, any take by Level A 

harassment or lethal take of polar bears 

during the 1-year period of this 

proposed IHA. Therefore, we anticipate 

that the specified activities will not 

have lasting impacts that could 

significantly affect an individual polar 

bear’s health, reproduction, or survival. 

The limited extent of anticipated 

impacts on polar bears is unlikely to 

adversely affect annual rates of polar 

bear survival or recruitment. Thus, we 

do not expect any long-term negative 

consequences to either individual- or 

population-level fitness. 

3. The IHA, if finalized, would require 

implementation of monitoring 

requirements and mitigation measures 

designed to reduce the potential impacts 

of their operations on polar bears. Den 

detection surveys for polar bears and 

adaptive mitigation and management 

responses based on real-time monitoring 

information (described in this proposed 

authorization) will be used to avoid or 

minimize interactions with polar bears 

and, therefore, limit potential 

disturbance of these animals. 

4. The FWS does not anticipate any 

lethal take that would remove 

individual polar bears from the 

population or prevent their successful 

reproduction. This proposed IHA does 

not authorize any take by Level A 

harassment or injury that will likely 

result in the death of a polar bear. 

We also consider the conjectural or 

speculative impacts associated with 

these specified activities. The specific 

congressional direction described below 

justifies balancing the probability of 

such impacts with their severity: If 

potential effects of a specified activity 

are conjectural or speculative, a finding 

of negligible impact may be appropriate. 

A finding of negligible impact may also 

be appropriate if the probability of 

occurrence is low, but the potential 

effects may be significant. In this case, 

the probability of occurrence of impacts 

must be balanced with the potential 

severity of harm to the species or stock 

when determining negligible impact. In 

applying this balancing test, the FWS 

will thoroughly evaluate the risks 

involved and the potential impacts on 

marine mammal populations. Such 

determination will be made based on 

the best available scientific information 

(54 FR 40338, September 29, 1989, 

quoting 53 FR 8473, March 15, 1988, 

and 132 Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 

1986)). 

The potential effects of most concern 

here are the mortality of cubs that could 

result from disturbances during certain 

periods of the denning season. The FWS 

estimated that the probability of greater 

than or equal to one lethal take that is 

likely to result in the mortality of a 

denning polar bear is zero within the 1- 

year period of this proposed IHA. 

Therefore, the FWS does not anticipate 

any lethal take will occur during the 

IHA period. If a den is disturbed and 

lethal take were to occur, this take 

would be limited to only cubs during 

the denning period. Denning females, 

the demographic group most important 

to annual recruitment, are limited to 

take by Level B harassment. Therefore, 

the number of potentially available 

reproductive females that would 

contribute to recruitment for the SBS 

stock would remain unaffected if a den 

disturbance were to result in the 

mortality of the cubs. 

The SBS stock of polar bears is 

currently estimated as 907 polar bears 

(Bromaghin et al. 2015, 2021; Atwood 

2020). The loss of one litter ranges from 

0 percent (0 cubs) to approximately 0.33 

percent (3 cubs) of the annual SBS stock 

size of polar bears (((0 cubs to 3 cubs) 

÷ 907) × 100≈0 to 0.33). Cub litter 

survival was estimated at 50 percent (90 

percent CI: 33–67 percent) for the SBS 

stock during 2001–2006 (Regehr et al. 

2010). A female may lose her litter for 

several reasons separate from den 

disturbance. The determining factor for 

polar bear stock growth is adult female 

survival (Eberhardt 1990). 

Consequently, the loss of female cubs 

has a greater impact on annual 

recruitment rates for the SBS stock of 

polar bears compared to male cubs. If a 

den disturbance were to result in the 

mortality of the entire litter, the female 

would be available to breed during the 

next mating season and could produce 

another litter during the next denning 

season. 

Based on our projected zero cub 

mortality associated with these 

specified activities, and the recognition 

that even if a den is disturbed, the 

number of potentially affected cubs 

would be minimal and the number of 

reproductive females in the stock would 

remain the same, the FWS does not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2731 

anticipate that the conjectural or 

speculative impacts associated with 

these specified activities warrant a 

finding of non-negligible impact or 

otherwise preclude issuance of this 

proposed IHA. We reviewed the effects 

of the specified well-plugging and 

reclamation activities on polar bears, 

including impacts from surface 

interactions, aircraft overflights, and 

den disturbance. Based on our review of 

these potential impacts, past monitoring 

reports, and the biology and natural 

history of polar bears, we anticipate that 

such effects will be limited to short-term 

behavioral disturbances. 

We have evaluated climate change 

regarding polar bears as part of the 

environmental baseline. Climate change 

is a global phenomenon and was 

considered as the overall driver of 

effects that could alter polar bear habitat 

and behavior. The FWS is currently 

involved in research to understand how 

climate change may affect polar bears. 

As we gain a better understanding of 

climate change effects, we will 

incorporate the information in future 

authorizations. 

We find that the impacts of these 

specified activities cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and are not reasonably 

likely to, adversely affect SBS polar 

bears through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. We therefore 

find that the total of the taking 

estimated above and proposed for 

authorization will have a negligible 

impact on SBS polar bears. We do not 

propose to authorize lethal take or any 

take by Level A harassment that we 

believe could result in long-term 

individual or population level fitness 

consequences. 

Impact on Subsistence Use 

Based on past community 

consultations, locations of hunting 

areas, no anticipated overlap of hunting 

areas and project activities, and the best 

scientific information available, 

including monitoring data from similar 

activities, we propose a finding that take 

caused by the oil well plugging and 

reclamation; soil sampling; snow trail, 

pad, and airstrip construction; and 

summer cleanup activities in the project 

area will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

polar bears for taking for subsistence 

uses during the proposed timeframe. 

While polar bears represent a small 

portion, in terms of the number of 

animals, of the total subsistence harvest 

for the Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, Wainwright 

and Atqasuk communities, their harvest 

is important to Alaska Natives. The 

BLM will be required to notify the cities 

of Wainwright and Utqiagvik and the 

Native villages of Atqasuk and Nuiqsut 

of the planned activities and document 

any discussions of potential conflict. 

The BLM must make reasonable efforts 

to ensure that activities do not interfere 

with subsistence hunting and that 

adverse effects on the availability of 

polar bears are minimized. Should such 

a concern be voiced, development of 

plans of cooperation (POC), which must 

identify measures to minimize any 

adverse effects, will be required. The 

POC will ensure that project activities 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of the species 

or stock for subsistence uses. This POC 

must provide the procedures addressing 

how the BLM will work with the 

affected Alaska Native communities and 

what actions will be taken to avoid 

interference with subsistence hunting of 

polar bears, as warranted. 

The FWS has not received any reports 

and is not aware of information that 

indicates that polar bears are being or 

will be deterred from hunting areas or 

impacted in any way that diminishes 

their availability for subsistence use by 

oil well plugging and reclamation; soil 

sampling; snow trail, pad, and airstrip 

construction; and summer cleanup. If 

there is evidence that these activities are 

affecting the availability of polar bears 

for take for subsistence uses, we will 

reevaluate our findings regarding 

permissible limits of take and the 

measures required to ensure continued 

subsistence hunting opportunities. 

Least Practicable Adverse Impact 

We evaluated the practicability and 

effectiveness of mitigation measures 

based on the nature, scope, and timing 

of the specified activities, the best 

available scientific information, and 

monitoring data during the BLM’s 

activities in the specified geographic 

region. We propose a finding that the 

mitigation measures included within 

the BLM’s Request will ensure least 

practicable adverse impacts on polar 

bears (BLM 2024). 

Polar bear den surveys at the 

beginning of the winter season, the 

resulting 1.6-km (1-mi) operational 

exclusion zone around any known polar 

bear dens, and restrictions on the timing 

and types of activities in the vicinity of 

dens will ensure that impacts to 

denning female polar bears and their 

cubs are minimized during this critical 

period. Minimum flight elevations over 

polar bear areas and flight restrictions 

around observed polar bears and known 

polar bear dens will reduce the potential 

for aircraft disturbing polar bears. 

Finally, the BLM will implement 

mitigation measures to prevent the 

presence and impact of attractants in 

camps such as the use of wildliferesistant waste receptacles, daily food 

waste incineration, and storing 

hazardous materials in drums or other 

secure containers. These measures are 

outlined in a polar bear interaction plan 

that was developed in coordination with 

the FWS and is part of the BLM’s 

application for this IHA. Based on the 

information we currently have regarding 

den and aircraft disturbance and polar 

bear attractants, we concluded that the 

mitigation measures outlined in the 

BLM’s Request (BLM 2024) and 

incorporated into this authorization will 

minimize impacts from the specified oil 

well plugging and reclamation, soil 

sampling, snow trail, pad, and airstrip 

construction, and summer cleanup 

activities to the extent practicable. 

Several mitigation measures were 

considered but determined to be not 

practicable. These measures are listed 

below: 

• Grounding all flights if they must fly 

below 457 m (1,500 ft)—Requiring all 

aircraft to maintain an altitude of 457 m 

(1,500 ft) at all times is not practicable 

as some operations may require flying 

below 457 m (1,500 ft) to perform 

necessary inspections or maintain safety 

of flight crew. Aircraft are required to 

fly above 457 m (1,500 ft) at all times 

within 805 m (0.5 mi) of an observed 

polar bear unless there is an emergency; 

• One-mile buffer around all known 

polar bear denning habitat—One-mile 

(1.6-km) buffer around all known polar 

bear denning habitat is not practicable 

as much of the BLM’s proposed project 

area occurs within 1.6 km (1 mi) of 

denning habitat; thus, to exclude all 

areas within 1.6 km of denning habitat 

would preclude the planned activities 

from occurring; 

• Prohibition of driving over high 

relief areas, embankments, or stream 

and river crossings—While the denning 

habitat, such as high relief areas, 

embankments, and streams or river 

banks, must be considered during 

tundra travel, complete prohibition is 

not practicable. High relief areas, 

embankments, streams, and rivers occur 

throughout the project area. To 

completely avoid these types of areas 

would likely cause personnel to drive 

further away from established 

operational areas and unnecessarily 

create additional safety concerns. 

Furthermore, other mitigation measures 

to minimize impact to denning habitats 

are included and will minimize the risk 

imposed by driving over high relief 

areas, embankments, or stream and river 

crossings; 

• Use of a broader definition of 

‘‘denning habitat’’ for operational 

offsets—There is no available data to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2732 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

support broadening the defining 

features of denning habitat beyond that 

established by the USGS. Such a 

redefinition would cause an increase in 

the area surveyed for maternal dens, and 

the associated increase in potential 

harassment of polar bears on the surface 

would outweigh the mitigative benefits; 

• Establishment of corridors for sow 

and cub transit to the sea ice—As there 

is no data to support the existence of 

natural transit corridors to the sea ice, 

establishment of corridors in the IHA 

area would be highly speculative. 

Therefore, there would be no mitigative 

benefit realized by their establishment; 

• Require all activities to cease if a 

polar bear is injured or killed until an 

investigation is completed—The FWS 

has incorporated reporting requirements 

into this proposed authorization for all 

polar bear interactions. While it may aid 

in any subsequent investigation, ceasing 

all activities may not be practicable or 

safe and, thus, will not be mandated; 

• Require use of den detection dogs— 

It is not practicable or safe to require 

scent-trained dogs to detect dens due to 

the large spatial extent that would need 

to be surveyed within activity areas; 

• Require the use of handheld or 

vehicle-mounted Forward Looking 

Infrared (FLIR)—The efficacy rates for 

AIR have been found to be four times 

more likely to detect dens versus 

ground-based FLIR (handheld or 

vehicle-mounted FLIR) due to impacts 

of blowing snow on detection. The BLM 

has incorporated into their mitigation 

measures the use of handheld or 

vehicle-mounted FLIR when transiting 

rivers occurring in suitable denning 

habitat, but it is not practicable to use 

the equipment during all transit; 

• Construct safety gates, fences, and 

enclosures to prevent polar bears from 

accessing facilities—This project will 

require no permanent facility/structures 

and encompasses a large area. 

Construction and deconstruction of 

barriers for a moving camp would 

increase potential human—polar bear 

interactions and impacts to polar bear 

habitat; 

• Employ protected species observers 

(PSOs) for monitoring, recording, 

reporting, and implementing mitigation 

measures—All personnel will be trained 

in wildlife observation, employment of 

PSOs would not be anticipated to 

reduce impacts to polar bears. 

Monitoring, recording, reporting are 

described in the IHA application; 

• Avoid areas of high-density polar 

bear use (e.g., barrier islands and 

coastline) including the establishment 

of camps and pads—This measure is 

not practicable because the legacy wells 

that this project is focused on are all 

located along the coastline, and snow 

trail must also cross through these areas 

to reach the well sites; 

• Avoid predominantly coastal routes 

for flight pathways—This measure is not 

practicable because the remediation 

sites are located along the coast, and 

aviation access routes to project sites 

must occur over the coast; and 

• Restrict activity and travel over 

polar bear denning habitat to eliminate 

or lessen risk of den collapse—This 

project has activities that will travel 

over potential polar bear denning 

habitat. The BLM has committed to 

multiple effective mitigation measures 

to minimize their potential impacts to 

polar bear denning habitat and reduce to 

chance of den collapse. Therefore, we 

believe that the probability of this 

project’s activities causing a den 

collapse is near zero and additional 

mitigation measures would not further 

reduce the probability. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have prepared a draft 

environmental assessment in 

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

4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily 

concluded that authorizing the 

nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take 

of 12 SBS polar bears by Level B 

harassment during the proposed 

harassment authorization period would 

not significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment and, thus, 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement for this incidental harassment 

authorization is not required by section 

102(2) of NEPA or its implementing 

regulations. We are accepting comments 

on the draft environmental assessment 

as specified above in DATES and 

ADDRESSES. 

Endangered Species Act 

Under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all Federal 

agencies are required to ensure the 

actions they authorize are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any threatened or endangered species or 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. Prior to 

issuance of a final IHA, the FWS will 

complete intra-Service consultation 

under section 7 of the ESA on our 

proposed issuance of an IHA. These 

evaluations and findings will be made 

available on the FWS’s website at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/ 

biological-opinion. 

Government-to-Government 

Consultation 

It is our responsibility to 

communicate and work directly on a 

Government-to-Government basis with 

federally recognized Alaska Native 

Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems. We seek their full 

and meaningful participation in 

evaluating and addressing conservation 

concerns for protected species. It is our 

goal to remain sensitive to Alaska 

Native culture, and to make information 

available to Alaska Tribal organizations 

and communities. Our efforts are guided 

by the following policies and directives: 

(1) The Native American Policy of the 

FWS (January 20, 2016); 

(2) The Alaska Native Relations Policy 

(currently in draft form; see 87 FR 

66255, November 3, 2022); 

(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 

2000); 

(4) Department of the Interior 

Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5, 1997), 

3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 

(December 1, 2011), 3342 (October 21, 

2016), and 3403 (November 15, 2021) as 

well as Director’s Order 227 (September 

8, 2022); 

(5) The Alaska Government-toGovernment Policy (a departmental 

memorandum issued January 18, 2001); 

and 

(6) the Department of the Interior’s 

policies on consultation with Alaska 

Native Tribes and organizations. 

We have evaluated possible effects of 

the proposed IHA on federally 

recognized Alaska Native Tribes and 

ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act) Corporations. The FWS 

has determined that authorizing the 

Level B harassment of up to 12 polar 

bears from the BLM’s specified activities 

would not have any Tribal implications 

or ANCSA Corporation implications 

and, therefore, Government-toGovernment consultation or 

Government-to-ANCSA Corporation 

consultation is not necessary. However, 

we invite continued discussion, either 

about the project and its impacts or 

about our coordination and information 

exchange throughout the IHA/POC 

public comment process. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed IHA does not contain 

any new collection of information that 

requires approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements associated with 

IHAs and assigned OMB Control 

Number 1018–0194 (expires 08/31/ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2733 

2026). An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

Proposed Authorization 

We propose to authorize, for 1 year 

from date of issuance, the nonlethal, 

incidental take by Level B harassment of 

up to 12 polar bears from the SBS stock 

of polar bears for activities associated 

with the BLM’s oil well plugging and 

reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, 

pad, and airstrip construction, and 

summer cleanup activities in the North 

Slope Borough of Alaska between 

Wainwright and Oliktok. Authorized 

take will be limited to Level B 

harassment only, i.e., disruption of 

behavioral patterns, and not anticipated 

to incur any significant impacts to either 

individual- or population-level fitness. 

We do not anticipate or authorize any 

take by Level A harassment, lethal take, 

or any other injury. 

A. General Conditions for the IHA for 

the BLM 

1. Activities must be conducted in the 

manner described in the revised Request 

dated August 2024 (received August 26, 

2024) for an IHA and in accordance 

with all applicable conditions and 

mitigation measures. The taking of polar 

bears whenever the required conditions, 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are not fully implemented as 

required by the IHA is prohibited. 

Failure to follow the measures specified 

both in the revised Request and within 

this proposed authorization may result 

in the modification, suspension, or 

revocation of the IHA. 

2. If project activities cause 

unauthorized take (i.e., take of more 

than 12 polar bears from the SBS stock 

by Level B harassment or a form of take 

other than Level B harassment, or take 

of 1 or more polar bears through 

methods not described in the IHA), then 

BLM must take the following actions: 

i. Cease its activities immediately (or 

reduce activities to the minimum level 

necessary to maintain safety); 

ii. Report the details of the incident to 

the FWS within 48 hours; and 

iii. Suspend further activities until the 

FWS has reviewed the circumstances 

and determined whether additional 

mitigation measures are necessary to 

avoid further unauthorized taking. 

3. All operations managers, aircraft 

pilots, and vehicle operators must 

receive a copy of this IHA and maintain 

access to it for reference at all times 

during project work. These personnel 

must understand, be fully aware of, and 

be capable of implementing the 

conditions of the IHA at all times during 

project work. 

4. This IHA will apply to activities 

associated with the proposed project as 

described in this document and in the 

BLM’s revised Request. Changes to the 

proposed project without prior 

authorization may invalidate the IHA. 

5. The BLM’s revised Request is 

approved and fully incorporated into 

this IHA unless exceptions are 

specifically noted herein. The revised 

Request includes: 

i. The BLM’s original Request for an 

IHA, dated June 2024, (received by the 

FWS June 17, 2024) which includes the 

BLM’s Polar Bear Safety, Awareness, 

and Interaction Plan and geospatial 

files; and 

ii. The BLM’s revised Request for an 

IHA, dated August 2024 (received by the 

FWS August 26, 2024). 

6. Operators will allow the FWS 

personnel or the FWS’s designated 

representative to visit project work sites 

to monitor for impacts to polar bears 

and subsistence uses of polar bears at 

any time throughout project activities so 

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

are all personnel operating under the 

BLM’s authority, including all 

contractors and subcontractors. 

The BLM must implement the 

following policies and procedures to 

avoid interactions and minimize to the 

greatest extent practicable any adverse 

impacts on polar bears, their habitat, 

and the availability of these marine 

mammals for subsistence uses. 

B. General Avoidance Measures 

1. The BLM must cooperate with the 

FWS and other designated Federal, 

State, and local agencies to monitor and 

mitigate the impacts of activities on 

polar bears. 

2. Trained and qualified personnel 

must be designated to monitor for the 

presence of polar bears, initiate 

mitigation measures, and monitor, 

record, and report the effects of the 

activities on polar bears. The BLM must 

provide all operators with polar bear 

awareness training prior to their 

participation in project activities. 

3. An FWS-approved polar bear 

safety, awareness, and interaction plan 

must be on file with the FWS Marine 

Mammal Management office and 

available onsite. The interaction plan 

must include: 

i. A description of the proposed 

activity (i.e., a summary of the plan of 

operations during the proposed 

activity); 

ii. A food, waste, and other attractants 

management plan; 

iii. Personnel training policies, 

procedures, and materials; 

iv. Site-specific polar bear interaction 

risk evaluation and mitigation measures; 

v. Polar bear avoidance and encounter 

procedures; and 

vi. Polar bear observation and 

reporting procedures. 

4. The BLM must contact potentially 

affected subsistence communities and 

hunter organizations to discuss 

potential conflicts caused by the 

activities and provide the FWS 

documentation of communications as 

described in D. Measures To Reduce 

Impacts to Subsistence Users. 

5. Mitigation measures for aircraft. 

The BLM must undertake the following 

activities to limit disturbance from 

aircraft activities: 

i. Operators of support aircraft shall, 

at all times, conduct their activities at 

the maximum distance practicable from 

concentrations of polar bears. 

ii. Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter 

operations within the IHA area must 

maintain a minimum altitude of 457 m 

(1,500 ft) above ground level when safe 

and operationally possible. 

iii. Under no circumstances, other 

than an emergency, will aircraft operate 

at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 

ft) within 805 m (0.5 mi) of a polar bear 

observed on ice or land measured in a 

straight line between the polar bear and 

the ground directly underneath the 

aircraft. Helicopters may not hover or 

circle above such areas or within 805 m 

(0.5 mi) of such areas. If weather 

conditions or operational constraints 

necessitate operation of aircraft at 

altitudes below 457 m (1,500 ft), the 

operator must avoid areas of known 

polar bear concentrations and should 

take precautions to avoid flying directly 

over or within 805 m (0.5 mi) of these 

areas. 

iv. Aircraft may not be operated in 

such a way as to separate individual 

polar bears from a group (i.e., two or 

more polar bears). 

6. Mitigation measures for winter 

activities. The BLM must undertake the 

following activities to limit disturbance 

around known polar bear dens: 

i. The BLM must conduct two aerial 

infrared (AIR) surveys of all denning 

habitat located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of 

specified activities in an attempt to 

identify maternal polar bear dens. The 

first survey obtained must occur 

between December 1 and December 25, 

2024, and the second survey obtained 

must occur between December 15, 2024, 

and January 10, 2025, with at least 24 

hours occurring between the completion 

of the first survey and the beginning of 

the second survey. 

ii. All observed or suspected polar 

bear dens must be reported to the FWS 

prior to the initiation of activities. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2734 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

iii. If a suspected den site is located, 

the BLM will immediately consult with 

the FWS to analyze the data and 

determine if additional surveys or 

mitigation measures are required. The 

FWS will determine whether the 

suspected den is to be treated as a 

putative den for the purposes of this 

IHA. 

iv. Operators must observe a 1.6-km 

(1-mi) operational exclusion zone 

around all putative polar bear dens 

during the denning season (November– 

April, or until the female and cubs leave 

the areas). Should a suspected den be 

discovered within 1 mile of activities, 

work must cease, and the FWS must be 

contacted for guidance. The FWS will 

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

action. Potential actions may range from 

cessation or modification of work to 

conducting additional monitoring, and 

the BLM must comply with any 

additional measures specified. 

v. In determining the denning habitat 

that requires surveys, the den habitat 

map developed by the USGS should be 

used. A map of potential coastal polar 

bear denning habitat can be found at: 

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/asc/ 

science/polar-bear-maternaldenning?qt-science_center_

objects=4#qt-science_center_objects. 

C. Monitoring 

1. Operators must provide onsite 

observers and implement the FWSapproved polar bear safety, awareness, 

and interaction plan to apply mitigation 

measures, monitor the project’s effects 

on polar bears and subsistence uses, and 

evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation 

measures. 

2. Onsite observers must be present 

during all operations and must record 

all polar bear observations, identify and 

document potential harassment, and 

work with personnel to implement 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

3. Operators shall cooperate with the 

FWS and other designated Federal, 

State, and local agencies to monitor the 

impacts of project activities on polar 

bears. Where information is insufficient 

to evaluate the potential effects of 

activities on polar bears and the 

subsistence use of this species, the BLM 

may be required to participate in joint 

monitoring efforts to address these 

information needs and ensure the least 

practicable impact to this resource. 

D. Measures To Reduce Impacts to 

Subsistence Users 

The BLM must conduct its activities 

in a manner that, to the greatest extent 

practicable, minimizes adverse impacts 

on the availability of polar bears for 

subsistence uses. 

1. The BLM will be required to 

develop a FWS-approved POC if, 

through community consultation, 

concerns are raised regarding impacts to 

subsistence harvest or Alaska Native 

Tribes and organizations. 

2. If an FWS-approved POC is 

required, the BLM will implement that 

POC 

3. Prior to conducting the work, the 

BLM will take the following steps to 

reduce potential effects on subsistence 

harvest of polar bears: 

i. Avoid work in areas of known polar 

bear subsistence harvest; 

ii. Notify the cities Wainwright and 

Utqiagvik and the Native Villages of 

Atqasuk and Nuiqsit of the proposed 

project activities; 

iii. Work to resolve any concerns of 

potentially affected Alaska Native Tribal 

organizations and corporations 

regarding the project’s effects on 

subsistence hunting of polar bears; 

iv. If any unresolved or ongoing 

concerns of potentially affected Alaska 

Native Tribal organizations and 

corporations remain, modify the POC in 

consultation with the FWS and 

subsistence stakeholders to address 

these concerns; and 

v. Implement FWS-required 

mitigation measures that will reduce 

impacts to subsistence users and their 

resources. 

E. Reporting Requirements 

The BLM must report the results of 

monitoring to the FWS Marine 

Mammals Management office via email 

at: FW7_mmm_reports@fws.gov. 

1. In-season monitoring reports. 

2. Activity progress reports. The BLM 

must: 

(i) Notify the FWS at least 48 hours 

prior to the onset of activities; 

(ii) Provide the FWS weekly progress 

reports of any significant changes in 

activities and/or locations; and 

(iii) Notify the FWS within 48 hours 

after ending of activities. 

3. Polar bear observation reports. The 

BLM must report, within 48 hours, all 

observations of polar bears and potential 

polar bear dens during any project 

activities. Upon request, monitoring 

report data must be provided in a 

common electronic format (to be 

specified by the FWS). Information in 

the observation report must include, but 

need not be limited to: 

i. Date and time of each observation; 

ii. Locations of the observer and polar 

bears (GPS coordinates if possible); 

iii. Number of polar bears; 

iv. Sex and age class—adult, subadult, 

cub (if known); 

v. Observer name and contact 

information; 

vi. Weather, visibility, and if at sea, 

sea state, and sea-ice conditions at the 

time of observation; 

vii. Estimated closest distance of polar 

bears from personnel and facilities; 

viii. Type of work being conducted at 

time of sighting; 

ix. Possible attractants present; 

x. Polar bear behavior—initial 

behavior when first observed (e.g., 

walking, swimming, resting, etc.); 

xi. Potential reaction—behavior of 

polar bear potentially in response to 

presence or activity of personnel and 

equipment; 

xii. Description of the encounter; 

xiii. Duration of the encounter; and 

xiv. Mitigation actions taken. 

4. Human-polar bear interaction 

reports. The BLM must report all 

human-polar bear interaction incidents 

immediately, and not later than 48 

hours after the incident. Human-polar 

bear interactions include: 

i. Any situation in which there is a 

possibility for unauthorized take. For 

instance, when project activities exceed 

those included in an IHA, when a 

mitigation measure was required but not 

enacted, or when the injury or death of 

a polar bear occurs. Reports must 

include all information specified for an 

observation report in paragraphs (3)(i)– 

(xiv) of this section E, a complete 

detailed description of the incident, and 

any other actions taken. 

ii. Injured, dead, or distressed polar 

bears that are clearly not associated with 

project activities (e.g., animals found 

outside the project area, previously 

wounded animals, or carcasses with 

moderate to advanced decomposition or 

scavenger damage) must also be 

reported to the FWS immediately, and 

not later than 48 hours after discovery. 

Photographs, video, location 

information, or any other available 

documentation must be included. 

6. Final report. The results of 

monitoring and mitigation efforts 

identified in the marine mammal 

avoidance and interaction plan must be 

submitted to the FWS for review within 

90 days of the expiration of this IHA. 

Upon request, final report data must be 

provided in a common electronic format 

(to be specified by the FWS). 

Information in the final report must 

include, but need not be limited to: 

i. Copies of all observation reports 

submitted under the IHA; 

ii. A summary of the observation 

reports; 

iii. A summary of monitoring and 

mitigation efforts including areas, total 

hours, total distances, and distribution; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2735 

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 either of the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. Please identify 

whether you are commenting on the 

proposed authorization, draft 

environmental assessment, or both, 

make your comments as specific as 

possible, confine them to issues 

pertinent to the proposed authorization, 

and explain the reason for any changes 

you recommend. Where possible, your 

comments should reference the specific 

section or paragraph that you are 

addressing. The FWS will consider all 

comments that are received before the 

close of the comment period (see 

DATES). The FWS does not anticipate 

extending the public comment period 

beyond the 30 days required under 

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

Comments, including names and 

street addresses of respondents, will 

become part of the administrative record 

for this proposal. Before including your 

address, telephone number, email 

address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be 

advised that your entire comment, 

including your personal identifying 

information, may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you can ask 

us in your comments to withhold from 

public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Peter Fasbender, 

Assistant Regional Director—Fisheries and 

Ecological Services, Alaska Region. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00450 Filed 1–10–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

[RR83530000, 256R5065C6, 

RX.59389832.1009676] 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Implementing Procedures for the 

Bureau of Reclamation (516 DM 14) 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of revisions. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

revision of seven categorical exclusions 

(CEs) listed in the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s procedures for 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The revisions clarify existing 

CEs on certain financial assistance 

funding, water-related contracting, and 

use authorization actions to allow for 

more consistent interpretation and more 

efficient review of appropriate actions 

based on the Reclamation’s experience 

implementing these CEs. 

DATES: The revised categorical 

exclusions are incorporated into 

Reclamation’s NEPA procedures, 

located at Chapter 14 of Part 516 of the 

Departmental Manual (516 DM 14), 

effective January 13, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The revised CEs can be 

found at the web address for 

Reclamation’s revised NEPA 

procedures, 516 DM 14: https://

www.doi.gov/document-library/ 

departmental-manual/516-dm-14- 

managing-nepa-process-bureaureclamation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Hunt (he/him) via phone at 916– 

202–7158, or via email at usbr_ce@

usbr.gov. Individuals who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) was established in 1902. 

Its original mission was civil works 

construction to develop the water 

resources of the arid Western United 

States to promote the settlement and 

economic development of that region. 

Reclamation developed hundreds of 

projects to store and deliver water. That 

substantial infrastructure development 

contributed to making Reclamation the 

largest wholesale supplier of water and 

the second largest producer of 

hydropower in the United States. 

On June 7, 2024, the Department of 

the Interior (Department) published a 

Federal Register notice (89 FR 48674) 

proposing revisions to seven categorical 

exclusions (CEs) in Reclamation’s NEPA 

implementing procedures, 516 DM 14. 

During the 30-day comment period, 

Reclamation received 14 comment 

letters and emails. A detailed summary 

of comments on the proposed revisions 

and Reclamation’s responses are noted 

below. 

Reclamation has reviewed the 

comments and has taken them into 

consideration in finalizing the revised 

CEs. Reclamation continues to find it 

appropriate to revise the seven CEs to 

promote consistent interpretation and 

application by eliminating confusing or 

outdated terminology and authorities, as 

well as clarifying the scope of activities 

and constraints. Reclamation edited the 

revised CEs to respond to comments, as 

noted below, and revised the CEs in 516 

DM 14, section 14.5, paragraph D 

entitled, ‘‘Operation and Maintenance 

Activities,’’ and paragraph F entitled, 

‘‘Financial Assistance, Loans, and 

Funding.’’ 

Comments on the Proposal 

The Department solicited comments 

from the public on the potential 

revisions to the CEs through a 30-day 

public comment period, announced in 

the Federal Register on June 7, 2024 (89 

FR 48674). Reclamation considered all 

comments received to date, and 

Reclamation has responded, as provided 

below, to all substantive issues raised in 

the public comments. 

Reclamation received 14 letters and 

emails from state governments, water 

and irrigation districts, water user 

organizations, and Tribal Nations. 

Individual comments included several 

that restated the objectives, limitations, 

and rationale for the proposed CE 

revisions, several that expressed general 

support or opposition for the proposed 

CE revisions, and several that provided 

more extensive detailed comments 

regarding the proposed CE revisions. 

Reclamation appreciates the interest 

and participation of all respondents. 

Reclamation has noted the comments 

that provided general support and 

general opposition. For comments 

providing additional detail, questions, 

and suggestions, Reclamation, where 

appropriate, grouped the common 

comments and responds to the 

comments as follows: 

Comment 1—Transparency and 

public input: Commenter expressed 

concern that the CE revisions would 

shift the analysis of project impacts to 

an internal process without public 

input. 

Response 1—The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

Department’s NEPA implementing 

regulations do not require public notice 

for an agency to use a CE. As provided 

in CEQ regulations and guidance, 

establishing, revising, and appropriately 

using CEs is consistent with NEPA. CEs 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1