[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33211-33255]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-16]
[[Page 33211]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 18
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Final Rule
[[Page 33212]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[FWS-R7-FHC-2008-0040; 71490-1351-0000-L5]
RIN 1018-AU41
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) has developed
regulations that authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional
take of small numbers of Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)
and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during oil and gas industry
(Industry) exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent
western coast of Alaska. This rule will be effective for 5 years from
date of issuance. We find that the total expected takings of Pacific
walruses (walruses) and polar bears during Industry exploration
activities will impact small numbers of animals, will have a negligible
impact on these species, and will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of these species for subsistence use by
Alaska Natives. The regulations include: permissible methods of
nonlethal taking; measures to ensure that Industry activities will have
the least practicable adverse impact on the species and their habitat,
and on the availability of these species for subsistence uses; and
requirements for monitoring and reporting. The Service will issue
Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to conduct activities under the
provisions of these regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective June 11, 2008, and remains effective
through June 11, 2013. We find that it is appropriate to make this rule
effective immediately because it relieves restrictions that would
otherwise apply under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and therefore
section 553(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act applies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Perham, Office of Marine Mammals
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone 907-786-3810 or 1-800-362-5148, or e-
mail R7_MMM_Comment@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
through the Director of the Service (we) the authority to allow the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals, in response to requests by U.S. citizens (you) [as defined in
50 CFR 18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) in a specified geographic region. According to the MMPA, we
shall allow this incidental taking if (1) we make a finding that the
total of such taking for the 5-year regulatory period will have no more
than a negligible impact on these species and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species for
taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives, and (2) we issue
regulations that set forth (i) permissible methods of taking, (ii)
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species
and their habitat and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses, and (iii) requirements for monitoring and reporting.
If we issue regulations allowing such incidental taking, we can issue
LOAs to conduct activities under the provisions of these regulations
when requested by citizens of the United States.
The term ''take,'' as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any
marine mammal. Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, for activities other
than military readiness activities or scientific research conducted by
or on behalf of the Federal Government, means ``any act of pursuit,
torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild'' [the MMPA calls this Level
A harassment] ``or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' [the MMPA calls this Level B
harassment] (16 U.S.C. 1362).
The terms ``small numbers,'' ``negligible impact,'' and
``unmitigable adverse impact'' are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e.,
regulations governing small takes of marine mammals incidental to
specified activities) as follows. ``Small numbers'' is defined as ``a
portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a
negligible impact on that species or stock.'' ``Negligible impact'' is
``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.'' ``Unmitigable adverse impact'' means ``an
impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to
reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a
harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the marine mammals to
abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing subsistence
users, or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals
and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine
mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.''
Industry conducts activities, such as oil and gas exploration, in
marine mammal habitat that could result in the taking of marine
mammals. Although Industry is under no legal requirement to obtain
incidental take authorization, since 1991, Industry has requested, and
we have issued regulations for, incidental take authorization for
conducting activities in areas of walrus and polar bear habitat. We
issued incidental take regulations for walruses and polar bears in the
Chukchi Sea for the period 1991-1996 (56 FR 27443; June 14, 1991). In
the Beaufort Sea, incidental take regulations have been issued from
1993 to present: November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60402); August 17, 1995 (60
FR 42805); January 28, 1999 (64 FR 4328); February 3, 2000 (65 FR
5275); March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16828); November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66744);
and August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926). These regulations are at 50 CFR part
18, subpart J (Sec. Sec. 18.121-18.129).
Summary of Current Request
On August 5, 2005, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), on
behalf of its members, (Agrium Kenai Nitrogen Operations, Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, BP
Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Chevron, Eni Petroleum, ExxonMobil
Production Company, Flint Hills Resources, Alaska, Forest Oil
Corporation, Marathon Oil Company, Petro-Canada (Alaska) Inc., Petro
Star Inc., Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Inc., Shell Exploration &
Production Company, Tesoro Alaska Company, and XTO Energy, Inc.)
requested that the Service issue regulations to allow the nonlethal,
incidental take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears in the
Chukchi Sea for a period of 5 years. The Service requested additional
information from AOGA regarding the nature, scope, and location of
proposed
[[Page 33213]]
activities for its analysis of potential impacts on walruses, polar
bears, and subsistence harvests of these resources. On November 22,
2006, Shell Offshore Inc. (SOI) provided an addendum to the AOGA
petition describing SOI's projected activities for 2007-2012.
On January 2, 2007, AOGA, on behalf of its members, also provided
an addendum to its original petition referencing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement prepared by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) for
the Chukchi Sea Planning Area: Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic
Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea (Chukchi Sea DEIS). The Chukchi
Sea DEIS included estimates of all reasonably foreseeable oil and gas
activities associated with proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease
sales in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. The AOGA petition requested
that the Service consider activities described in the Chukchi Sea DEIS
for the period 2007-2012. On January 2, 2007, ConocoPhillips Alaska,
Inc. (CPAI), also provided an addendum to the original AOGA petition
describing CPAI's projected activities from 2007-2012. The petition and
addendums are available at: (Alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm). The
Chukchi Sea DEIS, referenced in the AOGA petition, has subsequently
been finalized and is available at http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/
EIS%20EA/Chukchi_feis_Sale193/feis_193.htm (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-
026).
The combined requests are for regulations to allow the incidental,
nonlethal take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears in
association with oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent
coastline projected out to the year 2012. The information provided by
the petitioners indicates that projected oil and gas activities over
this timeframe will be limited to exploration activities. Development
and production activities were not considered in the requests. The
petitioners have also specifically requested that these regulations be
issued for nonlethal take. The petitioners have indicated that, through
the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, they are
confident that no lethal take will occur.
Prior to issuing regulations in response to this request, we must
evaluate the level of industrial activities, their associated potential
impacts to walruses and polar bears, and their effects on the
availability of these species for subsistence use. All projected
exploration activities described by SOI, CPAI, and AOGA (on behalf of
its members) in their petitions, as well as projections of reasonably
foreseeable activities for the period 2007-2012 described in the
Chukchi Sea EIS were considered in our analysis. The activities and
geographic region specified in the requests, and considered in these
regulations are described in the ensuing sections titled ``Description
of Geographic Region'' and ``Description of Activities.''
Description of Regulations
The regulations are limited to the nonlethal, incidental take of
small numbers of walruses and polar bears associated with oil and gas
exploration activities (geophysical seismic surveys, exploratory
drilling, and associated support activities) in the Chukchi Sea and
adjacent coast of Alaska and would be effective for a period of up to 5
years from the date of issuance. We assessed the geographic region, as
outlined in the ``Description of Geographic Region,'' and the type of
industrial activities, as outlined in the ``Description of Activities''
section. No development or production activities are anticipated over
this timeframe, or included in the regulations.
The total estimated level of activity covered by these regulations,
as outlined in the ``Description of Activities'' section, was based on
all projected exploration activities described by SOI, CPAI, and AOGA
(on behalf of its members) in their petitions, as well as projections
of reasonably foreseeable activities for the period 2007-2012 described
in the Chukchi Sea EIS. If the level of activity is more than
anticipated, such as additional support vessels or aircraft, more
drilling units, or more miles of geophysical surveys, the Service must
re-evaluate its findings to determine if they continue to be
appropriate.
It is important to note that these regulations do not authorize, or
``permit,'' the actual activities associated with oil and gas
exploration in the Chukchi Sea. Rather, they will authorize the
nonlethal incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of walruses
and polar bears associated with those activities based on standards set
forth in the MMPA. The MMS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are responsible for permitting
activities associated with oil and gas activities in Federal waters and
on Federal lands. The State of Alaska is responsible for permitting
activities on State lands and in State waters.
The regulations include permissible methods of nonlethal taking,
measures to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the species
and the availability of these species for subsistence uses, and
requirements for monitoring and reporting. The process for nonlethal
incidental take regulations will be that persons seeking taking
authorization for particular projects must apply for an LOA to cover
nonlethal take associated with specified exploration activities under
the regulations. Each group or individual conducting Industry-related
activity within the area covered by these regulations may request an
LOA.
A separate LOA is mandatory for each activity, (i.e., geophysical
survey, seismic activity, and exploratory drilling operation). We must
receive applications for LOAs at least 90 days before the activity is
to begin. Applicants for LOAs must submit an Operations Plan for the
activity, a polar bear interaction plan, and a site-specific marine
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor the effects of
authorized activities on walruses and polar bears. A report on all
exploration and monitoring activities must be submitted to the Service
within 90 days after the completed activity. Details of monitoring and
reporting requirements are further described in ``Potential Effects of
Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.''
Depending upon the nature, timing, and location of a proposed
activity, applicants may also have to develop a Plan of Cooperation
(POC) with potentially affected subsistence communities to minimize
interactions with subsistence users. The POC is further described in
``Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Subsistence
Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.''
We will evaluate each request for an LOA based upon the specific
activity and the specific location. Each authorization will identify
allowable methods or conditions specific to that activity and location.
For example, we will consider seasonal or location-specific
restrictions to limit interactions between exploration activities and
walrus aggregations, or interference with subsistence hunting
activities. Individual LOAs will include monitoring and reporting
requirements specific to each activity, as well as any measures
necessary for mitigating impacts to these species and the subsistence
use of these species. The granting of each LOA will be based on a
determination that the total level of taking by all applicants in any
one year is consistent with the estimated level used to make a finding
of negligible impact and a finding of no unmitigable adverse impacts on
the availability of
[[Page 33214]]
the species or the stock for subsistence uses. We will publish in the
Federal Register a notice of issuance of LOAs. More information on
applying for and receiving an LOA can be found at 50 CFR 18.27(f).
The status of polar bears range wide was reviewed for potential
listing under the Endangered Species Act and was listed as threatened
on May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28212). The Service conducted an intra-Service
section 7 consultation for these regulations, which resulted in a ``no
jeopardy'' conclusion and developed a process to incorporate section 7
consultations under the ESA into the established framework for
processing LOAs.
Description of Geographic Region
These regulations will allow Industry operators to incidentally
take small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears within the same
area, hereafter referred to as the Chukchi Sea Region (Figure 1). The
geographic area covered by the request is the continental shelf of the
Arctic Ocean adjacent to western Alaska. This area includes the waters
(State of Alaska and OCS waters) and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, which
encompasses all waters north and west of Point Hope (68[deg]20'20'' N,
-166[deg]50'40'' W, BGN 1947) to the U.S.-Russia Convention Line of
1867, west of a north-south line through Point Barrow (71[deg]23'29''
N, -156[deg]28'30'' W, BGN 1944), and up to 200 miles north of Point
Barrow. The region includes that area defined as the MMS OCS oil and
gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. The region also
includes the terrestrial coastal land 25 miles inland between the
western boundary of the south National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A)
near Icy Cape (70[deg]20'00'', -148[deg]12'00'') and the north-south
line from Point Barrow. The geographic region encompasses an area of
approximately 90,000 square miles. This terrestrial region encompasses
a portion of the Northwest and South Planning Areas of the NPR-A. It is
noteworthy that the north-south line at Point Barrow is the western
border of the geographic region in the Beaufort Sea incidental take
regulations (71 FR 43926; August 2, 2006).
Description of Activities
This section reviews the types and scale of oil and gas activities
projected to occur in the Chukchi Sea Region over the specified time
period (2007-2012). This information is based upon information provided
by the petitioners and referenced in the Chukchi Sea EIS. The Service
has used these descriptions of activity as a basis for its findings. If
requests for LOAs exceed the projected scope of activity analyzed under
these regulations, the Service will reevaluate its findings to
determine if they continue to be appropriate before further LOAs are
issued.
The Service does not know the specific locations where oil and gas
exploration will occur over the proposed regulatory period. The
location and scope of specific activities will be determined based on a
variety of factors, including the outcome of future Federal and State
oil and gas lease sales and information gathered through subsequent
rounds of exploration discovery. The information provided by the
petitioners indicates that offshore exploration activities will be
carried out during the open water season to avoid seasonal pack ice.
Onshore exploration activities are not expected to occur in the
vicinity of known polar bear denning areas or coastal walrus haulouts.
Incidental take regulations do not authorize the placement and
location of Industry activities; they can only authorize incidental
nonlethal take of walruses and polar bears. Allowing the activity at
particular locations is part of the permitting process that is
authorized by the lead permitting agency, such as the COE or BLM. The
specific dates and durations of the individual operations and their
geographic locations will be provided to the Service in detail when
requests for LOAs are submitted.
Oil and gas activities anticipated and considered in our analysis
of incidental take regulations include: (1) Marine-streamer 3D and 2D
seismic surveys; (2) high-resolution site-clearance surveys; (3)
offshore exploration drilling; (4) onshore seismic exploration and
exploratory drilling; (5) and the associated support activities for the
afore-mentioned activities. Descriptions of these activities follow.
Marine-Streamer 3D and 2D Seismic Surveys
Marine seismic surveys are conducted to locate geological
structures potentially capable of containing petroleum accumulations.
Air guns are the typical acoustic (sound) source for 2-dimensional and
3-dimensional (2D and 3D, respectively) seismic surveys. An outgoing
sound signal is created by venting high-pressure air from the air guns
into the water to produce an air-filled cavity (bubble) that expands
and contracts. A group of air guns is usually deployed in an array to
produce a downward-focused sound signal. Air gun array volumes for both
2D and 3D seismic surveys are expected to range from 1,800-6,000 cubic
inches (in3). The air guns are fired at short, regular
intervals, so the arrays emit pulsed rather than continuous sound.
While most of the energy is focused downward and the short duration of
each pulse limits the total energy into the water column, the sound can
propagate horizontally for several kilometers.
A 3D source array typically consists of two to three sub-arrays of
six to nine air guns each, and is about 12.5-18 meters (m) long and 16-
36 m wide. The size of the source-array can vary during the seismic
survey to optimize the resolution of the geophysical data collected at
any particular site. Vessels usually tow up to three source arrays,
depending on the survey-design specifications. Most 3D operations use a
single source vessel; however, in a few instances, more than one source
vessel may be used. The sound-source level (zero-to-peak) associated
with typical 3D seismic surveys ranges between 233 and 240 decibels at
1 meter (re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m).
The vessels conducting 3D surveys are generally 70-90 m (330-295
ft) long. Surveys are typically acquired at a vessel speed of
approximately 8.3 km/hour (4.5 knots). Source arrays are activated
approximately every 10-15 seconds, depending on vessel speed. The
timing between outgoing sound signals can vary for different surveys to
achieve the desired ``shot point'' spacing to meet the geological
objectives of the survey; typical spacing is 25-37.5 m (27-41 yards)
wide. The receiving arrays could include multiple (4-16) streamer-
receiver cables towed behind the source array. Streamer cables contain
numerous hydrophone elements at fixed distances within each cable. Each
streamer can be 3-8 km (2-5 mi) long with an overall array width of up
to 1,500 m (1,640 yards) between outermost streamer cables.
Biodegradable liquid paraffin is used to fill the streamer and provide
buoyancy. Solid/gel streamer cables also are used. The wide extent of
this towed equipment limits both the turning speed and the area a
vessel covers with a single pass over a geologic target. It is,
therefore, common practice to acquire data using an offset racetrack
pattern. Adjacent transit lines for a survey generally are spaced
several hundred meters apart and are parallel to each other across the
survey area. Seismic surveys are conducted day and night when ocean
conditions are favorable, and one survey effort may continue for weeks
or months, depending on the size of the survey. Data-acquisition is
affected by the arrays towed by the survey vessel and weather
conditions. Typically, data are only collected
[[Page 33215]]
between 25 and 30 percent of the time (or 6-8 hours a day) because of
equipment or weather problems. In addition to downtime due to weather,
sea conditions, turning between lines, and equipment maintenance,
surveys could be suspended to avoid interactions with biological
resources. The MMS estimates that individual surveys could last between
20-30 days (with downtime) to cover a 322 km2 (200
mi2) area.
Marine-streamer 2D surveys use similar geophysical-survey
techniques as 3D surveys, but both the mode of operation and general
vessel type used are different. The 2D surveys provide a less-detailed
subsurface image because the survey lines are spaced farther apart, but
they cover wider areas to image geologic structure on more of a
regional basis. Large prospects are easily identified on 2D seismic
data, but detailed images of the prospective areas within a large
prospect can only be seen using 3D data. The 2D seismic-survey vessels
generally are smaller than 3D-survey vessels, although larger 3D-survey
vessels are also capable of conducting 2D surveys. The 2D source array
typically consists of three or more sub-arrays of six to eight air gun
sources each. The sound-source level (zero-to-peak) associated with 2D
marine seismic surveys are the same as 3D marine seismic surveys (233-
240 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m). Typically, a single hydrophone streamer
cable approximately 8-12 km long is towed behind the survey vessel. The
2D surveys acquire data along single track lines that are spread more
widely apart (usually several miles) than are track lines for 3D
surveys (usually several hundred meters).
Both 3D and 2D marine-streamer surveys require a largely ice-free
environment to allow effective operation and maneuvering of the air gun
arrays and long streamers. In the Chukchi Sea Region, the timing and
areas of the surveys will be dictated by ice conditions. The data-
acquisition season in the Chukchi Sea could start sometime in July and
end sometime in early November. Even during the short summer season,
there are periodic incursions of sea ice, so there is no guarantee that
any given location will be ice free throughout the survey.
Approximately 160,934 km (100,000 line-miles) of 2D seismic surveys
already have been collected in the Chukchi Sea program area, so the MMS
assumes that additional geophysical surveys will be primarily 3D
surveys focusing on specific leasing targets surrounding OCS Lease Sale
193. The 3D surveys are likely to continue during the early phase of
exploration when wells are drilled; however, the number of surveys is
expected to decrease over time as data is collected over the prime
prospects and these prospects are tested by drilling.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, and estimates
prepared by the MMS in the Chukchi Sea EIS, the Service estimates that,
in any given year during the specified timeframe (2007-2012), up to
four seismic survey vessels could be operating simultaneously in the
Chukchi Sea Region during the open water season. During the 2006 open
water season, three seismic surveys were conducted, while only one
seismic survey was conducted during the 2007 open-water season. Each
seismic vessel is expected to collect between 3,200-14,500 km (2,000-
9,000 linear miles) of seismic survey data. Seismic surveys are
expected to occur in open water conditions between July 1 and November
30 each year. We estimate that each seismic survey vessel will be
accompanied or serviced by one to three support vessels. Helicopters
may also be used, when available, for vessel support and crew changes.
High-Resolution Site-Clearance Surveys
Based on mapping of the subsurface structures using 2D and 3D
seismic data, several well locations may be proposed. Prior to drilling
deep test wells, high-resolution site clearance seismic surveys and
geotechnical studies will be necessary to examine the proposed
exploration drilling locations for geologic hazards, archeological
features, and biological populations. Site clearance and studies
required for exploration will be conducted during the open water season
before a drill rig is mobilized to the site. A typical operation
consists of a vessel towing an acoustic source (air gun) about 25 m
behind the ship and a 600-m streamer cable with a tail buoy. The source
array usually is a single array composed of one or more air guns. A 2D
high-resolution site-clearance survey usually has a single air gun,
while a 3D high-resolution site survey usually tows an array of air
guns. The ships travel at 5.6-6.5 km/hour (3-3.5 knots), and the source
is activated every 7-8 seconds (or about every 12.5 m). All vessel
operations are designed to be ultra-quiet, as the higher frequencies
used in high-resolution work are easily masked by the vessel noise.
Typical surveys cover one OCS block at a time. MMS regulations require
information be gathered on a 300-by 900-m grid, which amounts to about
129 line kilometers of data per lease block. If there is a high
probability of archeological resources, the north-south lines are 50 m
apart and the 900 m remains the same.
Including line turns, the time to survey a lease block is
approximately 36 hours. Air gun volumes for high-resolution surveys
typically are 90-150 in\3\, and the output of a 90-in\3\ air gun ranges
from 229-233 dB high-resolution re 1[mu]Pa at 1m. Air gun pressures
typically are 2,000 psi (pounds per square inch), although they can be
used at 3,000 psi for higher signal strength to collect data from deep
in the subsurface.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, and estimates
prepared by the MMS in the Chukchi Sea EIS, we estimate that during the
specified timeframe (2007-2012), as many as six high-resolution site
surveys may be carried out in any given year, with the majority of site
surveys occurring in the latter part of the regulatory time period.
Offshore Drilling Operations
Considering water depth and the remoteness of this area, drilling
operations are most likely to employ drill ships with ice-breaker
support vessels. Water depths greater than 30 m (100 ft) and possible
pack-ice incursions during the open-water season will preclude the use
of bottom-founded platforms as exploration drilling rigs. Using drill
ships allows the operator to temporarily move off the drill site if sea
or ice conditions require it. Drilling operations are expected to range
between 30 and 90 days at different well sites, depending on the depth
to the target formation, difficulties during drilling, and logging/
testing operations. Drill ships will operate only during the open-water
season, where drifting ice can prevent their operation.
A drill ship is secured over the drill site by deploying anchors on
as many as ten to twelve mooring lines. The drill pipe is encased in a
riser that compensates for the vertical wave motion. The blowout
preventer (BOP) is typically located at the seabed in a hole dug below
the ice-scour depth. BOP placement is an important safety feature
enabling the drill ship to shut down operations and get underway
rapidly without exposing the well. One or more ice management vessels
(ice breakers) generally support drill ships to ensure ice does not
encroach on operations. A barge and tug typically accompany the vessels
to provide a standby safety vessel, oil spill response capabilities,
and refueling support. Most supplies (including fuel) necessary to
complete drilling activities are stored on the drill ship and support
vessels. Helicopter servicing of drill ships can occur as frequently as
1-2 times/day. The abandonment phase is initiated if
[[Page 33216]]
exploratory wells are not successful. In a typical situation, wells are
permanently plugged (with cement) and wellhead equipment removed. The
seafloor site is restored to some practicable, pre-exploration
condition. Post-abandonment surveys are conducted to confirm that no
debris remains following abandonment or those materials remain at the
lease tract. The casings for delineation wells are either cut
mechanically or with explosives during the process of well abandonment.
The MMS estimates that exploration wells will average 2,438 m (8,000
ft), will use approximately 475 tons of dry mud, and produce 600 tons
of dry rock cuttings. Considering the cost of synthetic drilling fluids
now commonly used, the MMS assumes that most of the drilling mud will
be reconditioned and reused. All of the rock cuttings will be
discharged at the exploration site.
Considering the relatively short open-water season in the Chukchi
Sea (July-November), the MMS estimates that up to four wells could be
started by one rig each drilling season. However, it is more likely
that only one to two wells could be drilled, tested, and abandoned by
one drill ship in any given season, leaving work on the other wells to
the next summer season. A total of five exploration wells have been
drilled on the Chukchi shelf, and the MMS estimates that 7 to 14
additional wells will be needed to discover and delineate a commercial
field.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, and estimates
prepared by the MMS in the Chukchi Sea EIS, we estimate that as many as
three drill ships could be operating in the Chukchi Sea Region in any
given year during the specified timeframe (2007-2012), with the
majority of exploratory drilling occurring in the latter part of the
regulatory time period. Each drill ship could drill up to four
exploratory or delineation wells per season. Each drill ship is likely
to be supported by one to two ice breakers, a barge and tug, one to two
helicopter flights per day, and one to two supply ships per week. The
operating season is expected to be limited to the open-water season
July 1 to November 30.
Onshore Seismic Exploration and Drilling
CPAI's petition also describes conducting onshore seismic
exploration and drilling over the next five years, including
geotechnical site investigations, vibroseis, construction of ice pads,
roads, and islands, and exploratory drilling. One of these activities
is the Intrepid prospect, approximately 32 km (20 mi) south of Barrow.
Geotechnical site investigations include shallow cores and soil
borings to investigate soil conditions and stratigraphy. Geotechnical
properties at select points may be integrated with seismic data to
develop a regional model for predicting soil conditions in areas of
interest.
Vibroseis seismic operations are conducted both onshore and on
nearshore ice using large trucks with vibrators that systematically put
variable frequency energy into the earth. A minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) of
sea ice is required to support heavy vehicles used to transport
equipment offshore for exploration activities. These ice conditions
generally exist from January 1 until May 31. The exploration techniques
are most commonly used on landfast ice, but they can be used in areas
of stable offshore pack-ice. Multiple vehicles are normally associated
with a typical vibroseis operation. One or two vehicles with survey
crews move ahead of the operation and mark the source receiver points.
Occasionally, bulldozers are needed to build snow ramps on the steep
terrain or to smooth offshore rough ice within the site.
A typical wintertime exploration seismic crew consists of 40-140
personnel. Roughly 75 percent of the personnel routinely work on the
active seismic crew, with approximately 50 percent of those working in
vehicles and the remainder outside laying and retrieving geophones and
cables.
With the vibroseis technique, activity on the surveyed seismic line
begins with the placement of sensors. All sensors are connected to the
recording vehicle by multi-pair cable sections. The vibrators move to
the beginning of the line, and recording begins. The vibrators move
along a source line, which is at some angle to the sensor line. The
vibrators begin vibrating in synchrony via a simultaneous radio signal
to all vehicles. In a typical survey, each vibrator will vibrate four
times at each location. The entire formation of vibrators subsequently
moves forward to the next energy input point (67 m (220 ft) in most
applications) and repeats the process. In a typical 16-to 18-hour day,
a survey will complete 6 to 16 linear km (4-10 mi) in a 2D seismic
operation and 24 to 64 linear km (15-40 mi) in a 3D seismic operation.
CPAI anticipates conducting between one and five vibroseis seismic
programs onshore within the northwest NPR-A over the next 5 years.
CPAI also anticipates developing vertical seismic profiles (VSPs)
to calibrate seismic and well data. Typically, VSP operations are
staffed by less than eight people. Four or five of the operators remain
in the vehicles (vibrators) within 1.6 to 3.2 km (1 to 2 mi) of the
rig, while the others are located at the rig.
On Federal lands, CPAI estimates drilling three to six onshore
wells within the next five years. Drilling will likely include both
well testing and VSPs. Three onshore wells are proposed for the 2007/
2008 season. Drilling operations will require an estimated 32-161 km
(20-100 mi) of ice roads, 32-483 km (20-300 mi) of rolligon trails, one
to four airfields approximately 1,500 m (5,000 ft) in length on lakes
or tundra, rig storage on gravel, possibly at new sites in the
Northwest NPR-A, one to five camps, and one to three rigs operating in
a given year.
Existing Mitigation Measures for Oil and Gas Exploration Activities
Measures to mitigate potential effects of oil and gas exploration
activities on marine mammal resources and subsistence use of those
resources have been identified and developed through previous MMS lease
sale National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and analysis
processes. The Chukchi Sea Final EIS (CS FEIS) (http://www.mms.gov/
alaska/ref/EIS%20EA/Chukchi_feis_Sale193/feis_193.htm (OCS EIS/EA
MMS 2007-026) identifies several existing measures designed to mitigate
potential effects of oil and gas exploration activities on marine
mammal resources and subsistence use of those resources (CS FEIS,
Sections II.B.3; II-B.5-24). All plans for OCS exploration activities
will go through an MMS review and approval to ensure compliance with
established laws and regulations. Operational compliance is enforced
through the MMS on-site inspection program. The following MMS lease
sale stipulations and mitigation measures will be applied to all
exploration activities in the Chukchi Lease Sale Planning Area and the
geographic region of the incidental take regulations. The Service has
incorporated these MMS Lease sale mitigation measures into their
analysis of impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears in the Chukchi
Sea.
MMS lease sale stipulations that will help minimize Industry
impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears include:
Oil Spill Prevention and Response
In compliance with 30 CFR 254, Oil-Spill-Prevention and Response
Plans and contingency actions must be prepared by lessees to address
the
[[Page 33217]]
prevention, detection, and cleanup of fuel and oil spills associated
with exploration operations.
Site-Specific Monitoring Program for Marine Mammal Subsistence
Resources
A lessee proposing to conduct exploration operations within
traditional subsistence use areas will be required to conduct a site-
specific monitoring program designed to assess when walruses and polar
bears are present in the vicinity of lease operations and the extent of
behavioral effects on these marine mammals due to their operations.
This stipulation applies specifically to the communities of Barrow,
Wainwright, Point Lay, and Point Hope.
Site-specific monitoring programs will provide information about
the seasonal distributions of walruses and polar bears. The information
can be used to improve evaluations of the threat of harm to the species
and provides immediate information about their activities, and their
response to specific events. This stipulation is expected to reduce the
potential effects of exploration activities on walruses, polar bears,
and the subsistence use of these resources. This stipulation also
contributes incremental and important information to ongoing walrus and
polar bear research and monitoring efforts.
Conflict Avoidance Mechanisms To Protect Subsistence-Harvesting
Activities
Through consultation with potentially affected communities, the
lessee shall make every reasonable effort to assure that their proposed
activities are compatible with marine mammal subsistence hunting
activities and will not result in unreasonable interference with
subsistence harvests. In the event that no agreement is reached between
the parties, the lessee, the appropriate management agencies and co-
management organizations, and any communities that could be directly
affected by the proposed activity may request that the MMS assemble a
group consisting of representatives from the parties specifically to
address the conflict and attempt to resolve the issues before the MMS
makes a final determination on the adequacy of the measures taken to
prevent unreasonable conflicts with subsistence harvests.
This lease stipulation will help reduce potential conflicts between
subsistence hunters and proposed oil and gas exploration activities.
This stipulation will help reduce noise and disturbance conflicts from
oil and gas operations during specific periods, such as peak hunting
seasons. It requires that the lessee meet with local communities and
subsistence groups to resolve potential conflicts. The consultations
required by this stipulation ensure that the lessee, including
contractors, consult and coordinate both the timing and sighting of
events with subsistence users. This stipulation has proven to be
effective in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area in mitigating offshore
exploration activities through the development of annual agreements
between the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and participating oil
companies.
Measures To Mitigate Seismic-Surveying Effects
The measures summarized below are based on the protective measures
in MMS' most recent marine seismic survey exploration permits and the
recently completed Programmatic Environmental Assessment of Arctic
Ocean OCS Seismic Surveys--2006 (http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/pea_
be.htm). As stated in the MMS Programmatic Environmental Assessment,
these protective measures will be incorporated in all MMS-permitted
seismic activities.
1. Spacing of Seismic Surveys--Operators must maintain a minimum
spacing of 15 miles between the seismic-source vessels for separate
simultaneous operations.
2. Exclusion Zone--A 180/190-decibel (dB) isopleth-exclusion zone
(also called a safety zone) from the seismic-survey-sound source shall
be free of marine mammals, including walruses and polar bears, before
the survey can begin and must remain free of mammals during the survey.
The purpose of the exclusion zone is to protect marine mammals from
Level A harassment. The 180-dB (Level A harassment injury) applies to
cetaceans and walruses, and the 190-dB (Level A harassment-injury)
applies to pinnipeds other than walruses and polar bears.
3. Monitoring of the Exclusion Zone--Trained marine mammal
observers (MMOs) shall monitor the area around the survey for the
presence of marine mammals to maintain a marine mammal-free exclusion
zone and monitor for avoidance or take behaviors. Visual observers
monitor the exclusion zone to ensure that marine mammals do not enter
the exclusion zone for at least 30 minutes prior to ramp up, during the
conduct of the survey, or before resuming seismic survey work after a
shut down.
Shut Down--The survey shall be suspended until the exclusion/safety
zone is free of marine mammals. All observers shall have the authority
to, and shall instruct the vessel operators to, immediately stop or de-
energize the airgun array whenever a marine mammal is seen within the
zone. If the airgun array is completely shut down for any reason during
nighttime or poor sighting conditions, it shall not be re-energized
until daylight or whenever sighting conditions allow for the zone to be
effectively monitored from the source vessel and/or through other
passive acoustic, aerial, or vessel-based monitoring.
Ramp Up--Ramp up is the gradual introduction of sound from airguns
to deter marine mammals from potentially damaging sound intensities and
from approaching the specified zone. This technique involves the
gradual increase (usually 5-6 dB per 5-minute increment) in emitted
sound levels, beginning with firing a single airgun and gradually
adding airguns over a period of at least 20-40 minutes, until the
desired operating level of the full array is obtained. Ramp-up
procedures may begin after observers ensure the absence of marine
mammals for at least 30 minutes. Ramp-up procedures shall not be
initiated at night or when monitoring the zone is not possible. A
single airgun operating at a minimum source level can be maintained for
routine activities, such as making a turn between line transects, for
maintenance needs or during periods of impaired visibility (e.g.,
darkness, fog, high sea states), and does not require a 30-minute
clearance of the zone before the airgun array is again ramped up to
full output.
Field Verification--Before conducting the survey, the operator
shall verify the radii of the exclusion/safety zones within real-time
conditions in the field. This provides for more accurate radii rather
than relying on modeling techniques before entering the field. Field-
verification techniques must use valid techniques for determining
propagation loss. When moving a seismic-survey operation into a new
area, the operator shall verify the new radii of the zones by applying
a sound-propagation series.
4. Monitoring of the Seismic-Survey Area--Aerial-monitoring surveys
or an equivalent monitoring program acceptable to the Service will be
required through the LOA authorization process. Field verification of
the effectiveness of any monitoring techniques may be required by the
Service.
5. Reporting Requirements--Reporting requirements provide
regulatory agencies with specific information on the monitoring
techniques to be implemented and how any observed impacts to marine
mammals will be recorded. In addition,
[[Page 33218]]
operators must immediately report to Federal regulators any shut downs
due to a marine mammal entering the exclusion zones and provide the
regulating agencies with information on the frequency of occurrence and
the types and behaviors of marine mammals (if possible to ascertain)
entering the exclusion zones.
6. Temporal/Spatial/Operational Restrictions--Seismic-survey and
associated support vessels shall observe an 805-m (0.5-mi) safety
radius around walruses hauled-out onto land or ice. Aircraft shall be
required to maintain a 305-m (1,000-ft) minimum altitude within 805 m
(0.5 mi) of hauled-out walruses.
7. Seismic-survey operators shall notify MMS immediately in the
event of any loss of cable, streamer, or other equipment that could
pose a danger to marine mammals.
These seismic mitigation measures will help reduce the potential
for Level A Harassment of walruses and polar bears during seismic
operations. The spatial separation of seismic operations will also
reduce potential cumulative effects of simultaneous operations. The
monitoring and reporting requirements will provide location-specific
information about the seasonal distributions of walruses and polar
bears. The additional information can be used to evaluate the future
threat of harm to the species and also provides immediate information
about their activities, and their response to specific events.
Biological Information
Pacific Walruses
1. Stock Definition and Range
Pacific walruses are represented by a single stock of animals that
inhabit the shallow continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi
seas. The population ranges across the international boundaries of the
United States and Russia, and both nations share common interests with
respect to the conservation and management of this species.
The distribution of Pacific walruses varies markedly with the
seasons. During the late winter breeding season, walruses are found in
areas of the Bering Sea where open leads, polynyas, or areas of broken
pack-ice occur. Significant winter concentrations are normally found in
the Gulf of Anadyr, the St. Lawrence Island Polynya, and in an area
south of Nunivak Island. In the spring and early summer, most of the
population follows the retreating pack-ice northward into the Chukchi
Sea; however, several thousand animals, primarily adult males, remain
in the Bering Sea, utilizing coastal haul-outs, during the ice-free
season. During the summer months, walruses are widely distributed
across the shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea.
Significant summer concentrations are normally found in the
unconsolidated pack-ice west of Point Barrow, and along the northern
coastline of Chukotka, Russia, near Wrangel Island. As the ice edge
advances southward in the fall, walruses reverse their migration and
re-group on the Bering Sea pack-ice.
Between 1975 and 1990, aerial surveys were carried out by the
United States and Russia at five year intervals, producing population
estimates of: 221,350 (1975); 246,360 (1980); 234,020 (1985); and
201,039 (1990). The estimates generated from these surveys are
considered conservative abundance estimates and are not useful for
detecting trends because walruses are found in large groups that are
distributed in a non-uniform fashion. Efforts to survey the Pacific
walrus population were suspended after 1990 due to unresolved problems
with survey methods to address the patchy distribution of walruses and
that resulted in population estimates with unacceptably large
confidence intervals. In the spring of 2006, a joint U.S./Russia aerial
survey to estimate the walrus population was carried out in the pack
ice of the Bering Sea. This information is currently being analyzed and
a current population estimate is expected in the near future.
Estimating the abundance or population size of Pacific walruses has
been an inherently problematic task. Previous efforts conducted in the
autumn (1975, 1980, 1985, and 1990) resulted in widely varying
estimates with high variance and low confidence limits. Accounting for
animals using traditional haul-outs is factored into the abundance
estimates. The 1975, 1980, and 1985 walrus surveys predominatly found
animals over sea ice habitat. In contrast, the 1990 survey included a
large number of walruses located on land haul-outs, predominantly in
Russia, during a season of extreme ice recession.
A 1975 evaluation of aerial survey methods conducted in the U.S.
sector over the eastern half of the Chukchi Sea (5 days of effort
covering 7,743 km and 30.2 flight hours) found walruses were unevenly
distributed, patchy, and encountered more frequently in ice habitat
where at least 75 percent of the surface was covered by ice. Estimates
of abundance, based on single day density estimates, ranged from 818 to
1,760 walruses in the open-water area, and 2,475 to 100,568 walruses in
pack ice sampled areas.
In 1980, a coordinated U.S. and Russian aerial survey found
walruses located throughout the area surveyed and the U.S. distribution
showed extreme clustering of walruses on pack ice in an area of high
density between longitude 166[deg] W and 171[deg] W. Initially the
estimates were 140,000 animals in the U.S. and 130,000 to 150,000
animals in Russia, with a final total estimate of 246,360 animals.
In 1985, the third joint walrus survey found few walruses in the
U.S. sector east of 161[deg] or west of 170[deg]. On days when more
walruses were in the water, they were found farther into the pack ice,
and on days when nearly all walruses were hauled out on the ice, they
were close to the southern edge of the ice. The estimate of abundance
for the U.S. portion of the survey was 63,487 animals with an
additional 15,238 animals, mainly males, estimated in Bristol Bay, far
to the south. The Russians estimated either 54,080 or 115,531 walruses
in the pack ice of their sector, depending on the inclusion or
exclusion of a large aggregation of walruses encountered on survey
transects from the abundance estimate. This illustrates the symptomatic
nature of clustered or patchy distributions of walruses noted earlier
and the consequence on abundance estimates. In addition, the Russians
counted 39,572 animals on their Bering Sea land haul-outs. The combined
U.S. and Russia estimate was 234,020 animals.
In 1990, a fourth joint survey was designed to employ a common
survey design. Unlike other surveys, the study area was unexpectedly
characterized by an extreme amount of open water caused by an unusual
recession of pack ice. As a result, the survey covered land haul-outs
in the U.S. and Russia as well as open water and pack ice. The total
combined population estimate was 201,039. Of this total, the U.S.
sector was comprised of 7,522 walruses in Bristol Bay haul-outs and
only 16,489 estimated in the Chukchi Sea area. This estimate differs
dramatically from previous pack ice estimates in the U.S. Chukchi Sea
region, where walruses were relatively abundant in previous surveys.
The vast majority of walruses were located in the Russian sector
(154,225 walruses) and occupied land haul-outs, including 112,848
animals on Wrangel Island. Land haul-outs in Kamchatka, Southern
Chukotka, the Gulf of Anadyr, and the north shore of Chukotka accounted
for the remaining 41,377 animals. The Russian pack ice
[[Page 33219]]
was remarkably sparse with an estimate of only 16,484 animals.
2. Habitat
Walruses are an ice dependent species. They rely on floating pack-
ice as a substrate for resting and giving birth. Walruses generally
require ice thicknesses of 50 centimeters (cm) or more to support their
weight. Although walruses can break through ice up to 20 cm thick, they
usually occupy areas with natural openings and are not found in areas
of extensive, unbroken ice. Thus, their concentrations in winter tend
to be in areas of divergent ice flow or along the margins of persistent
polynyas. Concentrations in summer tend to be in areas of
unconsolidated pack-ice, usually within 100 km of the leading edge of
the ice pack. When suitable pack-ice is not available, walruses haul
out to rest on land. Isolated sites, such as barrier islands, points,
and headlands, are most frequently occupied. Social factors, learned
behavior, and proximity to their prey base are also thought to
influence the location of haul-out sites. Traditional walrus haul-out
sites in the eastern Chukchi Sea include Cape Thompson, Cape Lisburne,
and Icy Cape. In recent years, the Cape Lisburne haul-out site has seen
regular use in late summer. Numerous haul-outs also exist along the
northern coastline of Chukotka, and on Wrangel and Herald islands,
which are considered important haul-out areas in late summer,
especially in years when the pack-ice retreats beyond the continental
shelf. Notably, during the 1990 population survey, when the Chukchi Sea
was largely ice-free, large haul-outs of walruses (over 100,000
animals) formed on Wrangel Island. In contrast, walruses observed
during the 1970 though 1985 aerial surveys were seen primarily on sea
ice over the continental shelf between Wrangel Island and Alaska.
Although capable of diving to deeper depths, walruses are for the
most part found in shallow waters of 100 m or less, possibly because of
higher productivity of their benthic foods in shallower water. They
feed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates although Native
hunters have also reported incidences of walruses preying on seals.
Prey densities are thought to vary across the continental shelf
according to sediment type and structure. Preferred feeding areas are
typically composed of sediments of soft, fine sands. The juxtaposition
of ice over appropriate depths for feeding is especially important for
females with dependent calves that are not capable of deep diving or
long exposure in the water. The mobility of the pack-ice is thought to
help prevent walruses from overexploiting their prey resource.
Although walruses may range some distance from land or ice haul-
outs, for example during migrations or foraging excursions, the species
is not adapted to a pelagic existence. Foraging trips can sometimes
last up to several days, during which time they dive to the bottom
nearly continuously. Most foraging dives to the bottom last between 5
and 10 minutes, with a relatively short (1-2 minute) surface interval.
3. Life History
Walruses are long-lived animals with low rates of reproduction.
Females reach sexual maturity at 4 to 9 years of age. Males become
fertile at 5 to 7 years of age; however, they are usually unable to
compete for mates until they reach full physical maturity at 15-16
years of age. Breeding occurs between January and March in the pack-ice
of the Bering Sea. Calves are usually born in late April or May the
following year during the northward migration from the Bering Sea to
the Chukchi Sea. Calving areas in the Chukchi Sea extend from the
Bering Strait to latitude 70 [deg]N. Calves are capable of entering the
water shortly after birth, but tend to haul-out frequently, until their
swimming ability and blubber layer are well developed. Newborn calves
are tended closely. They accompany their mother from birth and are
usually not weaned for 2 years or more. Cows brood neonates to aid in
their thermoregulation, and carry them on their back or under their
flipper while in the water. Females with newborns often join together
to form large ``nursery herds''. Summer distribution of females and
young walruses is closely tied to the movements of the pack-ice
relative to feeding areas. Females give birth to one calf every 2 or
more years. This reproductive rate is much lower than other pinniped
species; however, some walruses live to age 35-40, and remain
reproductively active until relatively late in life.
Walruses are extremely social and gregarious animals. They tend to
travel in groups and haul-out onto ice or land in groups. Walruses
spend approximately one-third of their time hauled out onto land or
ice. Hauled-out walruses tend to lie in close physical contact with
each other. Youngsters often lie on top of the adults. The size of the
hauled-out groups can range from a few animals up to several thousand
individuals.
4. Mortality
Polar bears are known to prey on walrus calves, and killer whales
(Orcinus orca) have been known to take all age classes of animals.
Predation levels are thought to be highest near terrestrial haul-out
sites where large aggregations of walruses can be found; however, few
observations of killer whales preying on walruses exist.
Pacific walruses have been hunted by coastal Natives in Alaska and
Chukotka for thousands of years. Exploitation of the Pacific walrus
population by Europeans has also occurred in varying degrees since
first contact. Presently, walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka is
restricted to meet the subsistence needs of aboriginal peoples. Over
the past decade, the combined harvest of the United States and Russia
has averaged approximately 5,500 walruses per year. This mortality
estimate includes corrections for under-reported harvest and struck and
lost animals.
Intraspecific trauma is also a known source of injury and
mortality. Disturbance events can cause walruses to stampede into the
water and have been known to result in injuries and mortalities. The
risk of stampede-related injuries increases with the number of animals
hauled out. Calves and young animals at the perimeter of these herds
are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries.
5. Distributions and Abundance of Pacific Walruses in the Chukchi Sea
Walruses are seasonably abundant in the Chukchi Sea. Their
distribution in the region is influenced primarily by the distribution
and extent of seasonal pack-ice. In May and June walruses migrate into
the region along lead systems that form along the coastlines of Alaska
and Chukotka. During the summer months walruses are widely distributed
along the southern margin of the seasonal pack-ice both in U.S. and
Russian waters. During August, the edge of the pack-ice generally
retreats northward to about 71 [deg]N, but in light ice years, the ice
edge can retreat beyond 76 [deg]N. The sea ice normally reaches its
minimum (northern) extent in September. In recent years, several tens
of thousands of walruses have been reported congregating at coastal
haul-outs along the Russian coast in late summer. Russian biologists
attribute the formation of these coastal aggregations to diminishing
sea ice habitats in offshore regions. In 2007, a new sea ice minima
record was established. Sea ice had completely retreated from the
continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea by mid-August, 2007 and
anecdotal
[[Page 33220]]
reports from Russia indicate that as many as 100,000 walruses,
comprised of mixed herds of females and calves, congregated at coastal
haul-outs along the northern Chukotka coastline. An estimated 2,000 to
5,000 walruses were also observed along the Alaskan Chukchi Sea coast
in 2007 using nontraditional haul-outs. This is a relatively small
portion of the annual, hauled-out animals in the population.
Historically, approximately 5,000 animals have annually used the
Bristol Bay haul-outs, such as Round Island and Cape Seniavin. The
pack-ice usually advances rapidly southward in October, and most
walruses move into the Bering Sea by mid-to-late November.
Walrus are closely associated with sea ice. The dynamic nature of
sea ice habitats is expected to result in considerable seasonal and
annual variation in the number of animals likely to be present in the
proposed exploration arena. While a recent abundance estimate for the
number of walruses likely to be present in the offshore waters of the
eastern Chukchi Sea during the proposed exploration season is not
available, an aerial survey was carried out in the fall of 1990 during
a season of minimum ice conditions where sea ice retracted north beyond
the continental shelf, similar to recent conditions throughout the
Chukchi Sea. This survey observed 16,489 walruses distributed along the
Chukchi Sea pack-ice between Wrangel Island and Point Barrow, where a
much larger portion of the population was distributed in Russia on land
and sea ice haul-outs. The sea ice was distributed well beyond the
continental shelf at the time of the survey and most walruses were
using coastal haul-outs in Russia, which is similar to the pattern of
distribution observed in 2007.
Polar Bears
1. Alaska Stock Definition and Range
Polar bears occur throughout the Arctic. The world population
estimate of polar bears ranges from 20,000-25,000 individuals. In
Alaska, they have been observed as far south in the eastern Bering Sea
as St. Matthew Island and the Pribilof Islands. However, they are most
commonly found within 180 miles of the Alaskan coast of the Chukchi and
Beaufort seas, from the Bering Strait to the U.S./Canada border. Two
stocks occur in Alaska: (1) The Chukchi-Bering seas stock (CS); and (2)
the Southern Beaufort Sea stock (SBS). A summary of the Chukchi and
Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear stocks is described below. A detailed
description of the Chukchi Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear
stocks can be found in the ``Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar Bear
(Ursus maritimus)'' (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/
issues.htm).
A. Chukchi/Bering Seas Stock (CS)
The CS is defined as those polar bears inhabiting the area as far
west as the eastern portion of the Eastern Siberian Sea, as far east as
Point Barrow, and extending into the Bering Sea, with its southern
boundary determined by the extent of annual ice. Based upon telemetry
studies, the western boundary of the population has been set near
Chaunskaya Bay in northeastern Russia. The eastern boundary is at Icy
Cape, Alaska, which was, until recently, also considered to be the
western boundary of the SBS. This eastern boundary constitutes a large
overlap zone with bears in the SBS population. The CS population
appeared to increase after the level of harvest was reduced in 1972.
However, harvest records suggest that the population now may be
declining. Illegal polar bear hunting in Russia is thought to be one
reason for this decline. The most recent population estimate for the CS
population is 2,000 animals. This was based on extrapolation of aerial
den surveys from the early 1990s; however, this estimate is currently
considered to be of little value for management. Reliable estimates of
population size based upon mark and recapture are not available for
this region and measuring the population size remains a research
challenge due to the movements of the polar bear and the dynamic Arctic
habitat.
Legal harvesting activities for the CS stock are currently
restricted to Native Alaskans in western Alaska, as long as this does
not affect the sustainability of the polar bear population. In Alaska,
average annual harvest levels declined by approximately 50 percent
between the 1980s and the 1990s and have remained at low levels in
recent years. We believe there are several factors affecting the
harvest level of CS bears in western Alaska. Substantial illegal
harvest in Chukotka is the most relevant factor affecting the CS
population level. In recent years a reportedly sizable illegal harvest
has occurred in Russia, despite a ban on hunting that has been in place
since 1956. In addition, other factors such as climatic change and its
effects on pack-ice distribution, as well as changing demographics and
hunting effort in Native communities could influence the population and
the declining take. The unknown rate of illegal take makes a stable
designation for the CS population uncertain and tentative.
Until recently, the United States and Russia have managed the
shared CS polar bear population independently. Now, Alaska and Russian
bear researchers and managers are working to update and enhance the
collective knowledge of polar bears in the CS stock to improve
management goals and objectives. On September 21, 2007, the United
States ratified the U.S./Russia Bilateral Polar Bear Conservation
Agreement (Bilateral Agreement) for the shared polar bear population,
which had been signed by both countries on October 16, 2000;
implementing legislation for the agreement occurred in January 2007.
The purpose of the Bilateral Agreement is to assure long-term, science-
based conservation of the polar bear population and includes binding
harvest limits. Implementation of the Bilateral Agreement will unify
management regimes and provide for harvest limits. The treaty calls for
the active involvement of Native people and their organizations in
future management programs. It will also enhance such long-term joint
efforts as conservation of ecosystems and important habitats, harvest
allocations based on sustainability, collection of biological
information, and increased consultation and cooperation with state,
local, and private interests.
In association with the ratification of the agreement, the Service
sponsored a meeting from August 7 through 9, 2007, of technical
specialists from the United States and Russia to discuss future
management, research, and conservation needs for the CS polar bear
population. The goals of the meeting were to exchange information about
current and future research activities and priorities, provide
technical input concerning research and management needs for the
implementation of the Bilateral Agreement with specific regard to field
research and conservation practices, and to initiate planning for
managing the subsistence harvest in Alaska and Russia under the newly
activated treaty. The primary challenge discussed by the group is the
lack of population information (status and trends) to support
determination of a sustainable harvest as called for by the Bilateral
Agreement. Information from this meeting will be shared at the first
meeting of the Joint Commissioners.
B. Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS)
The SBS polar bear population is shared between Canada and Alaska.
Radio-telemetry data, combined with earlier tag returns from harvested
bears, suggested that the SBS region comprised a single population with
a western boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an
[[Page 33221]]
eastern boundary near Pearce Point, Northwest Territories, Canada.
Early estimates from the mid 1980s suggested the size of the SBS
population was approximately 1,800 polar bears, although uneven
sampling was known to compromise the accuracy of that estimate. A
population analysis of the SBS stock was completed in June 2006 through
joint research coordinated between the United States and Canada. That
analysis indicated the population within the region between Icy Cape
and Pearce Point is now approximately 1,500 polar bears (95 percent
confidence intervals approximately 1,000-2,000). Although the
confidence intervals of the current population estimate overlap the
previous population estimate of 1,800; other statistical and ecological
evidence (e.g., high recapture rates encountered in the field) suggest
that the current population is actually smaller than has been estimated
for this area in the past.
Recent analyses of radio-telemetry data of spatio-temporal use
patterns of bears of the SBS stock using new spatial modelling
techniques suggest realignment of the boundaries of the Southern
Beaufort Sea area. We now know that nearly all bears in the central
coastal region of the Beaufort Sea are from the SBS population, and
that proportional representation of SBS bears decreases to both the
west and east. For example, only 50 percent of the bears occurring in
Barrow, Alaska, and Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, are SBS bears,
with the remainder being from the CS and Northern Beaufort Sea
populations, respectively. The recent radio-telemetry data indicate
that bears from the SBS population seldom reach Pearce Point, which is
currently on the eastern management boundary for the SBS population.
Only a small proportion of the SBS polar bear population will be
found in the Chukchi Sea region during the ice-covered season. This is
based on estimates of probabilities of polar bear distribution from
each population. The relative probabilities of sighting a bear were
developed using satellite radio-telemetry data. This technique has also
increased our understanding of the proportions of the populations that
could occur in the region where both populations overlap. These
probabilities indicate that SBS polar bears will be found at lower
proportions in the western portions of their range (Chukchi Sea) than
in the central portions of their range (central Beaufort Sea).
Management and conservation concerns for the CS and SBS polar bear
populations include: climate change, which continues to increase both
the expanse and duration of open water in summer and fall; human
activities within the near-shore environment, including hydrocarbon
development and production; atmospheric and oceanic transport of
contaminants into the Arctic; and the potential for inadvertent over-
harvest, should polar bear stocks become nutritionally stressed or
decline due to some combination of the above concerns.
Today, habitat loss, illegal hunting, and, in particular, the
diminishing extent, thickness, and seasonal persistence of sea ice pose
the most serious threats to polar bears worldwide. As a result of such
concerns, the polar bear was listed as threatened under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), on May 15, 2008 (73
FR 28212). More information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/.
2. Habitat
Polar bears of the Chukchi Sea are subject to the movements and
coverage of the pack-ice and annual ice as they are dependent on the
ice as a platform for hunting and surviving. Polar bears are widely
distributed within their range and are generally solitary animals,
although they will form aggregations around food sources. Historically,
polar bears of the Chukchi Sea have spent most of their time on the
annual ice in near-shore, shallow waters over the productive
continental shelf, which is associated with the shear zone and the
active ice adjacent to the shear zone. Sea ice and food availability
are two important factors affecting the distribution of polar bears.
During the ice-covered season, bears use the extent of the annual ice.
The most extensive north-south movements of polar bears are associated
with the spring and fall ice movement. For example, during the 2006
ice-covered season, six bears radio-collared in the Beaufort Sea were
located in the Chukchi and Bering Seas as far south as 59[deg]
latitude, which was the farthest extent of the annual ice during 2006.
A small number of bears sometimes remain on the Russian and Alaskan
coasts during the initial stages of ice retreat in the spring.
Polar bear distribution during the open-water season in the Chukchi
Sea, where maximum open water occurs in September, is dependent upon
the location of the ice edge as well. The summer ice pack can be quite
disjointed and segments can be driven great distances by wind carrying
polar bears with them. Recent telemetry movement data are lacking for
bears in the Chukchi Sea; however, an increased trend by polar bears to
use coastal habitats in the fall during open-water and freeze-up
conditions has been noted by researchers since 1992. Recently, during
the minimum sea ice extents, which occurred in 2005 and 2007, polar
bears exhibited this coastal movement pattern as observations from
Russian biologists and satellite telemetry data of bears in the
Beaufort Sea indicated that bears were found on the sea ice or along
the Chukotka coast during the open-water period.
3. Denning and Reproduction
Although insufficient data exist to accurately quantify polar bear
denning along the Alaskan Chukchi Sea coast, dens in the area appear to
be less concentrated than for other areas in the Arctic. The majority
of denning of CS polar bears occurs in Russia on Wrangel Island, Herald
Island, and certain locations on the northern Chukotka coast. In
addition, due to changes in the formation of sea ice along the Chukotka
coast, there are some indications that the Bear Islands (Medvezhiy
Ostrova), near the Kolyma River estuary, have become a denning area for
the CS stock as well.
Females without dependent cubs breed in the spring. Females can
initiate breeding at five to six years of age. Females with cubs do not
mate. Pregnant females enter maternity dens by late November, and the
young are usually born in late December or early January. Only pregnant
females den for an extended period during the winter; other polar bears
may excavate temporary dens to escape harsh winter winds. An average of
two cubs are born. Reproductive potential (intrinsic rate of increase)
is low. The average reproductive interval for a polar bear is three to
four years, and a female polar bear can produce about 8 to 10 cubs in
her lifetime; in healthy populations, 50 to 60 percent of the cubs will
survive. Female bears can be quite sensitive to disturbances during
this denning period.
In late March or early April, the female and cubs emerge from the
den. If the mother moves young cubs from the den before they can walk
or withstand the cold, mortality to the cubs may increase. Therefore,
it is thought that successful denning, birthing, and rearing activities
require a relatively undisturbed environment. Radio and satellite
telemetry studies elsewhere indicate that denning can occur in multi-
year pack-ice and on land. Recent studies of the SBS indicate that the
proportion of dens on pack-ice have declined from approximately 60
percent in 1985-1994 to 40 percent in 1998-2004.
[[Page 33222]]
4. Prey
Ringed seals (Phoca hispida) are the primary prey of polar bears in
most areas. Bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) and walrus calves are
hunted occasionally. Polar bears can opportunistically scavenge marine
mammal carcasses. Polar bears will occasionally feed on bowhead whale
(Balaena mysticetus) carcasses at Point Barrow, Cross, and Barter
Islands, areas where bowhead whales are harvested for subsistence
purposes. There are also reports of polar bears killing beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas) trapped in the ice. Polar bears are also known
to ingest anthropogenic, nonfood items including Styrofoam, plastic,
antifreeze, and hydraulic and lubricating fluids.
Polar bears use the sea ice as a platform to hunt seals. Polar
bears hunt seals using various means. They can hunt along leads and
other areas of open water, by waiting at a breathing hole, or by
breaking through the roof of a seal lair. Lairs are excavated in snow
drifts on top of the ice. Bears also stalk seals in the spring when
they haul out on the ice in warm weather. The relationship between ice
type and polar bear distribution is as yet unknown, but it is suspected
to be related to seal availability. Due to changing sea ice conditions
the area of open water and proportion of marginal ice has increased and
extends later in the fall. This may limit seal availability to polar
bears as the most productive areas for seals appear to be over the
shallower waters of the continental shelf.
5. Mortality
Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30 years) and have no natural
predators, and they do not appear to be prone to death by diseases or
parasites. Cannibalism by adult males on cubs and occasionally on other
bears is known to occur. The most significant source of mortality is
man. Before the MMPA was passed in 1972, polar bears were taken by
sport hunters and residents. Between 1925 and 1972, the mean reported
kill was 186 bears per year. Seventy-five percent of these were males,
as cubs and females with cubs were protected. Since 1972, only Alaska
Natives from coastal Alaskan villages have been allowed to hunt polar
bears in the United States for their subsistence uses or for handicraft
and clothing items for sale. The Native hunt occurs without
restrictions on sex, age, or number provided that the population is not
determined to be depleted. From 1980 to 2005, the total annual harvest
for Alaska averaged 101 bears: 64 percent from the Chukchi Sea and 36
percent from the Beaufort Sea. Other sources of mortality related to
human activities include bears killed during research activities,
euthanasia of injured bears, and defense of life kills by non-Natives.
6. Distributions and Abundance of Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea
Polar bears are seasonably abundant in the Chukchi Sea and Lease
Sale Area 193 and their distribution is influenced by the movement of
the seasonal pack-ice. Polar bears in the Chukchi and Bering Seas move
south with the advancing ice during fall and winter and move north in
advance of the receding ice in late spring and early summer. The
distance between the northern and southern extremes of the seasonal
pack-ice is approximately 800 miles. In May and June, polar bears are
likely to be encountered in the Lease Sale Area 193 as they move
northward from the northern Bering Sea through the Bering Strait into
the southern Chukchi Sea. During the fall/early winter period, polar
bears are likely to be encountered in the Lease Sale Area 193 during
their southward migration in late October and November. Furthermore,
bears from the SBS and CS populations can be encountered in the Chukchi
Sea as they travel with the pack-ice or ice floes in search of food.
Polar bears are dependent upon the sea ice for foraging and the most
productive areas to be near the ice edge, leads, or polynyas over the
continental shelf where the ocean depth is minimal. In addition, polar
bears could be present along the shoreline in this area, as they will
opportunistically scavenge on marine mammal carcasses washed up along
the shoreline and they may become stranded on land due to the receding
pack-ice.
Subsistence Use and Harvest Patterns of Pacific Walruses and Polar
Bears
Walruses and polar bears have been traditionally harvested by
Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. The harvest of these species
plays an important role in the culture and economy of many coastal
communities in Alaska and Chukotka. Walrus meat is consumed by humans
and dogs, and the ivory is used to manufacture traditional arts and
crafts. Polar bears are primarily hunted for their fur, which is used
to manufacture cold weather gear; however, their meat is also
occasionally consumed. The communities most likely to be impacted by
the proposed activities are Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and
Barrow.
An exemption under section 101(b) of the MMPA allows Alaska Natives
who reside in Alaska and dwell on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean
or the Arctic Ocean to take walruses and polar bears if such taking is
for subsistence purposes, including creating and selling authentic
native articles of handicrafts and clothing, as long as the take is not
done in a wasteful manner. Under the terms of the MMPA, there are no
restrictions on the number, season, or ages of walruses or polar bears
that can be harvested in Alaska. A more restrictive Inuvialuit-Inupiat
Polar Bear Native-to-Native Agreement (Native Agreement) between the
Inupiat in Northern Alaska and the Inuvialuit in the Northwest
Territories Canada was created for the SBS bears in 1988. Polar bears
harvested from the communities of Barrow and Wainwright are currently
considered part of the SBS stock and thus are subject to the terms of
the Native Agreement. The Native Agreement establishes quotas and
recommendations concerning protection of denning females, family
groups, and methods of take. Quotas are based on estimates of
population size and age-specific estimates of survival and recruitment.
The polar bears harvested by the communities of Point Hope and Point
Lay are thought to come primarily from the Chukchi/Bering sea stock.
Neither Point Hope nor Point Lay hunters are parties to the Native
Agreement.
The Service collects information on the subsistence harvest of
walruses and polar bears in Alaska through the Marking, Tagging and
Reporting Program (MTRP). The program is administered through a network
of MTRP ``taggers'' employed in subsistence hunting communities. The
marking and tagging Rule requires that hunters report harvested
walruses and polar bears to MTRP taggers within 30 days of kill.
Taggers also certify (tag) specified parts (ivory tusks for walruses,
hide and skull for polar bears) to help control illegal take and trade.
MTRP reports are thought to generally underestimate the total U.S.
subsistence walrus harvest, with one recent estimate as low as 30
percent of actual harvest in Barrow. According to Service records,
polar bear harvests reported by the MTRP are believed to be as high as
80 percent of the actual subsistence harvest in the communities most
affected by this regulation.
Harvest levels of polar bears and walruses in these communities
vary considerably between years, presumably in response to differences
in animal distribution and ice conditions. Descriptive information on
subsistence harvests of walruses and polar bears in each community is
presented below.
[[Page 33223]]
Point Hope
Between 1990 and 2006, the average annual walrus harvest recorded
through the MTRP at Point Hope was 3.6 ( 5.1, SD) animals
per year. Point Hope hunters typically begin their walrus hunt in late
May and June as walruses migrate into the Chukchi Sea. The sea ice is
usually well off shore of Point Hope by July and does not bring animals
back into the range of hunters until late August and September. Most
(70.8 percent) of the reported walrus harvest at Point Hope occurred in
the months of June and September. Most of the walruses recorded through
the MTRP at Point Hope were taken within five miles of the coast, or
near coastal haulout sites at Cape Lisburne.
Between 1990 and 2006, the average reported polar bear harvest at
Point Hope was 13.1 4.8 animals per year. Polar bear
harvests typically occur from January to April. Most of the polar bears
reported through the MTRP program were harvested within 10 miles of the
community; however, residents also reported taking polar bears as far
away as Cape Thompson and Cape Lisburne.
Point Lay
Point Lay hunters reported an average of 2.2 2.0
walruses per year between 1990 and 2006. Based on MTRP data, walrus
hunting in Point Lay peaks in June-July with 84.4 percent of all
walruses being harvested during these months. Historically, harvests
have occurred primarily within 40 miles north and south along the coast
from Point Lay and approximately 30 miles offshore.
Between 1990 and 2006, the average reported polar bear harvest at
Point Lay was 2.3 1.4 animals per year. The only
information on harvest locations comes from the MTRP database; all
reported harvest occurred within 25 miles of Point Lay.
Wainwright
Wainwright hunters have consistently harvested more walruses than
any other subsistence community on the North Slope. Between 1990 and
2006, the average reported walrus harvest in Wainwright was 44.2 29.2 animals per year. A discrepancy between MTRP data and past
household surveys is noted. Walruses are thought to represent
approximately 40 percent of the communities' annual subsistence diet of
marine mammals. Wainwright residents hunt walruses from June through
August as the ice retreats northward. Walruses can be plentiful in the
pack-ice near the village this time of year. Most (85.2 percent) of the
harvest occurs in June and July. Most walrus hunting is thought to
occur within 20 miles of the community, in all seaward directions.
Between 1990 and 2006, the average reported polar bear harvest at
Wainwright was 6.8 3.7 animals per year. Polar bears are
harvested throughout much of the year, with peak harvests reported in
May and December. Polar bear are often harvested coincidentally with
beluga and bowhead whale harvests. MTRP data indicate that most hunting
occurs within 10 miles of the community.
Barrow
Barrow is the northernmost community within the geographical region
being considered. Most (88.6 percent) walrus hunting occurs in June and
July when the land-fast ice breaks up and hunters can access the
walruses by boat as they migrate north on the retreating pack-ice.
Walrus hunters from Barrow sometimes range up to 60 miles from shore;
however, most harvests reported through the MTRP have occurred within
30 miles of the community. Between 1990 and 2006, the average reported
walrus harvest in Barrow was 24.1 14.6 animals per year.
Between 1990 and 2006, the average reported polar bear harvest at
Barrow was 21.3 8.9 animals per year. The number of polar
bears harvested in Barrow is thought to be influenced by ice conditions
and the number of people out on the ice. Most (74 percent) of all polar
bear harvests reported by Barrow residents occurred in February and
March. Although relatively few people are thought to hunt specifically
for polar bears, those that do hunt primarily between October and
March. Hunting areas for polar bears overlap strongly with areas of
bowhead subsistence hunting; particularly the area from Point Barrow
south to Walakpa Lagoon where walrus and whale carcasses are known to
attract polar bears.
Potential and Observed Impacts of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on
Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Pacific Walruses
A. Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses
1. Disturbance
Proposed oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea
Region include the operation of seismic survey vessels, drill ships,
icebreakers, supply boats, fixed-winged aircrafts, and helicopters.
Operating this equipment near walruses without appropriate mitigation
measures could result in disturbances. Potential effects of
disturbances on walruses include insufficient rest, increased stress
and energy expenditure, interference with feeding, masking of
communication, and impaired thermoregulation of calves that spend an
increased amount of time in the water. Prolonged or repeated
disturbances could potentially displace individuals or herds from
preferred feeding or resting areas. Disturbance events can cause walrus
groups to abandon land or ice haul-outs. Severe disturbance events
occasionally result in trampling injuries or cow-calf separations, both
of which are potentially fatal. Calves and young animals at the
perimeter of the herds appear particularly vulnerable to trampling
injuries.
The response of walruses to disturbance stimuli is highly variable.
Anecdotal observations by walrus hunters and researchers suggest that
males tend to be more tolerant of disturbances than females and
individuals tend to be more tolerant than groups. Females with
dependent calves are considered least tolerant of disturbances. Hearing
sensitivity is assumed to be within the 13 Hz and 1,200 Hz range of
their own vocalizations. Walrus hunters and researchers have noted that
walruses tend to react to the presence of humans and machines at
greater distances from upwind approaches than from downwind approaches,
suggesting that odor is also a stimulus for a flight response. The
visual acuity of walruses is thought to be less than for other species
of pinnipeds.
Walruses are poorly adapted to life in the open ocean. They must
periodically haul out onto ice or land to rest between feeding bouts.
Previous aerial survey efforts in the offshore region of the eastern
Chukchi Sea found that most (80-96 percent) walruses were closely
associated with sea ice and that the number of walruses observed in
open water decreased significantly with distance from the pack ice.
Under minimal or no-ice conditions, we expect most walruses will either
migrate out of the region in pursuit of more favorable ice habitats, or
relocate to coastal haulouts where their foraging trips will be
restricted to near-shore habitats. Therefore, in evaluating the
potential impacts of exploration activities on Pacific walruses, the
presence or absence of pack ice could serve as one indicator of whether
or not walruses are likely to be found in the area. Activities
occurring in or near sea ice habitats are presumed to have the greatest
potential for interacting with walruses. Activities
[[Page 33224]]
occurring under open water conditions are expected to interact with
relatively small numbers of animals.
Seismic operations are expected to add significant levels of noise
into the marine environment. Although the hearing sensitivity of
walruses is poorly known, source levels associated with Marine 3D and
2D seismic surveys are thought to be high enough to cause temporary
hearing loss in other pinniped species. Therefore, walruses within the
180-decibel (dB re 1 [mu]Pa) safety radius described by Industry for
seismic activities could potentially suffer shifts in hearing
thresholds and temporary hearing loss. Seismic survey vessels will be
required to ramp up airguns slowly to allow marine mammals the
opportunity to move away from potentially injurious sound sources.
Marine mammal monitors will also be required to monitor seismic safety
zones and call for the power down or shut down of airgun array if any
marine mammals are detected within the prescribed safety zone.
Geotechnical seismic surveys and high-resolution site clearance
seismic surveys are expected to occur primarily in open water
conditions, at a sufficient distance from the pack-ice and large
concentrations of walruses to avoid most disturbances. Although most
walruses are expected to be closely associated with sea ice or coastal
haulouts during offshore exploration activities, small numbers of
animals may be encountered in open water conditions. Walruses swimming
in open water will likely be able to detect seismic airgun pulses up to
several kilometers from a seismic source vessel. The most likely
response of walruses to noise generated by seismic surveys will be to
move away from the source of the disturbance. Because of the transitory
nature of the proposed seismic surveys, impacts to walruses exposed to
seismic survey operations are expected to be temporary in nature and
have little or no effects on survival or recruitment.
Although concentrations of walruses in open water environments are
expected to be low, groups of foraging or migrating animals transiting
through the area may be encountered. Adaptive mitigation measures based
upon real time monitoring information will be implemented to mitigate
potential impacts to walrus groups feeding in offshore locations and
ensure that these impacts are limited to small numbers of animals. The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) identified that Level B
harassment of marine mammals begins at 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa. The Service
concurs with this determination and believes its use is applicable to
walrus aggregations. For that reason, whenever an aggregation of 12 or
more walruses are detected within an acoustically verified 160-dB re 1
[mu]Pa disturbance zone ahead of or perpendicular to the seismic vessel
track, the Service will require the operator to immediately power down
the seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic sources to ensure sound
pressure levels at the shortest distance to the aggregation do not
exceed 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa. The operator will not be allowed to proceed
with powering up the seismic airgun array until it can be established
that there are no walrus aggregations within the 160-dB zone based upon
ship course, direction, and distance from last sighting.
Offshore exploration activities are expected to occur primarily in
areas of open water some distance from the pack-ice; however, support
vessels and/or aircraft may occasionally encounter aggregations of
walruses hauled out onto sea ice. The sight, sound, or smell of humans
and machines could potentially displace these animals from ice haul-
outs. Ice management operations are expected to have the greatest
potential for disturbances since these operations typically require
vessels to accelerate, reverse direction, and turn rapidly, activities
that maximize propeller cavitations and resulting noise levels.
Previous studies suggest that icebreaking activities can displace some
walrus groups up to several miles away; however, most groups of hauled
out walruses showed little reaction beyond 805 m (0.5 mi). Impacts
associated with transiting support vessels and aircrafts are likely to
be distributed in time and space. Therefore, noise and disturbance from
aircraft and vessel traffic associated with exploration projects are
expected to have relatively localized, short-term effects.
Nevertheless, the potential for disturbance events resulting in
injuries, mortalities, or mother-calf separations is of concern. The
potential for injuries is expected to increase with the size of
affected walrus aggregations. Adaptive mitigation measures designed to
separate Industry activities from walrus aggregations at coastal
haulouts and in sea-ice habitats are expected to reduce the potential
for animal injuries, mortalities, and mother-calf separations.
Restricting offshore exploration activities to the open-water season
(July 1 to November 30) is also expected to reduce the number of
potential interactions between walruses and Industry operations
occurring in or near sea ice habitats. Adaptive operational
restrictions, including an 800-m (0.5-mi) operational exclusion zone
for marine vessels, and a 305-m (1,000-ft) altitude restriction for
aircraft flying near walrus groups hauled-out onto land or sea ice, are
similarly expected to minimize disturbances to walruses hauled out onto
ice or land.
Drilling operations are expected to occur at several offshore
locations during the later stages of the regulations. Although drilling
activities are expected to occur primarily during open water
conditions, the dynamic movements of sea ice could transport walruses
within range of drilling operations. The MMS permit stipulation
identifying a 0.5-mile operational exclusion zone around groups of
hauled-out walruses is expected to help mitigate disturbances to
walruses near prospective drill sites. Mitigation measures specified in
an LOA including requirements for ice-scouting, surveys for walruses
and polar bears in the vicinity of active drilling operations and ice
breaking activities, requirements for marine mammal observers onboard
drill ships and ice breakers, and operational restrictions near walrus
and polar bear aggregations are expected to further reduce the
potential for interactions between walruses and drilling operations.
2. Waste Discharge and Oil Spills
The potential exists for fuel and oil spills to occur from seismic
and support vessels, fuel barges, and drilling operations. Little is
known about the effects of fuel and oil on walruses; however, walruses
may react to fuel and oil much like other pinniped species. Damage to
the skin of pinnipeds can occur from contact with oil because some of
the oil penetrates into the skin, causing inflammation and ulcers.
Exposure to oil can quickly cause permanent eye damage. In studies
conducted on other pinniped species, pulmonary hemorrhage,
inflammation, congestion, and nerve damage resulted after exposure to
concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a period of 24 hours. Walruses are
extremely gregarious animals and normally associate in large groups;
therefore, any contact with spilled oil or fuel could impact several
individuals.
Exposure to oil could also impact benthic prey species. Bivalve
mollusks, a favorite prey species of the walrus, are not effective at
processing hydrocarbon compounds, resulting in highly concentrated
accumulations and long-term retention of contamination within the
organism. Exposure to oil may kill prey organisms or result in slower
growth and productivity. Because walrus feed primarily on mollusks,
they may be more vulnerable to a loss of this
[[Page 33225]]
prey species than other pinnipeds that feed on a larger variety of
prey.
Although fuel and oil spills have the potential to cause adverse
impacts to walruses and prey species, operational spills associated
with the proposed exploration activities are not considered a major
threat. Operational spills would likely be of a relatively small
volume, and occur in areas of open water where walrus densities are
expected to be relatively low. Furthermore, blowout prevention
technology will be required for all exploratory drilling operations in
the Chukchi Sea by the permitting agencies, and the MMS considers the
likelihood of a blowout occurring during exploratory drilling in the
Chukchi Sea as negligible (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026). The MMS operating
stipulations, including oil spill prevention and response plans, reduce
both the risk and scale of potential spills. For these reasons, any
impacts associated with an operational spill are expected to be limited
to a small number of animals.
Despite the minimal risk, all projects will have oil spill
contingency plans (specific to the project) that will be approved by
the appropriate permitting agencies prior to the issuance of an LOA.
The contingency plans have a wildlife component, which outlines
protocols to minimize wildlife exposure, including polar bears and
walruses, to oil spills.
3. Cumulative Effects
The following events have contributed to current environmental
conditions in the Chukchi Sea and could also cumulatively affect
Pacific walrus population status in the next five years:
Commercial and Subsistence Harvest--Walruses have an intrinsically
low rate of reproduction and are thus limited in their capacity to
respond to exploitation. In the late 19th century, American whalers
intensively harvested walruses in the northern Bering and southern
Chukchi seas. Between 1869 and 1879, catches averaged more than 10,000
per year, with many more animals struck and lost. The population was
substantially depleted by the end of the century, and the commercial
hunting industry collapsed in the early 1900s. Since 1930, the combined
walrus harvests of the United States and Russia have ranged from 2,300-
9,500 animals per year. Notable harvest peaks occurred during 1930-1960
(4,500-9,500 per year) and in the 1980's (5,000-9,000 per year).
Commercial hunting continued in Russia until 1991 under a quota system
of up to 3,000 animals per year. Since 1992, the harvest of Pacific
walruses has been limited to the subsistence catch of coastal
communities in Alaska and Chukotka. Harvest levels through the 1990s
ranged from approximately 2,400-4,700 animals per year. Although recent
harvest levels are lower than historic highs, lack of information on
current population size or trend precludes an assessment of sustainable
harvest rates.
Climate Change--Analysis of long-term environmental data sets
indicates that substantial reductions in both the extent and thickness
of the arctic sea-ice cover have occurred over the past 40 years.
Record minimum sea ice extent was recorded in 2002, 2005, and again in
2007; sea ice cover in 2003 and 2004 was also substantially below the
20-year mean. Walruses rely on suitable sea ice as a substrate for
resting between foraging bouts, calving, molting, isolation from
predators, and protection from storm events. The juxtaposition of sea
ice over shallow-shelf habitat suitable for benthic feeding is
important to walruses. Recent trends in the Chukchi Sea have resulted
in seasonal sea-ice retreat off the continental shelf and over deep
Arctic Ocean waters, presenting significant adaptive challenges to
walruses in the region. Reasonably foreseeable impacts to walruses as a
result of diminishing sea ice cover include: shifts in range and
abundance; increased vulnerability to predation and disturbance;
declines in prey species; increased mortality rates resulting from
storm events; and premature separation of females and dependent calves.
Secondary effects on animal health and condition resulting from
reductions in suitable foraging habitat may also influence survivorship
and productivity. Future studies investigating walrus distributions,
population status and trends, and habitat use patterns in the Chukchi
Sea are important for responding to walrus conservation and management
issues associated with environmental and habitat changes.
Commercial Fishing and Marine Vessel Traffic--Available data
suggest that walruses rarely interact with commercial fishing and
marine vessel traffic. Walruses are normally closely associated with
sea ice, which limits their interactions with fishing vessels and barge
traffic. However, as previously noted, the temporal and seasonal extent
of the sea ice is projected to diminish in the future. Commercial
shipping through the Northwest Passage and Siberian arctic waters may
develop in coming decades. Commercial fishing opportunities may also
expand should the sea ice continue to diminish. The result could be
increased temporal and spatial overlap between fishing and shipping
operations and walrus habitat use and increased interactions between
walruses and marine vessels.
Past Offshore Oil and Gas Related Activities--Oil and gas related
activities have been conducted in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas since
the late 1960's. Much more oil and gas related activity has occurred in
the Beaufort Sea than in the Chukchi Sea OCS. Pacific walruses do not
normally range into the Beaufort Sea, and documented interactions
between oil and gas activities and walruses have been minimal (see
Observed Impacts of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses). The Chukchi Sea OCS has previously experienced some oil and
gas exploration activity, but no development or production. Because of
the transitory nature of past oil and gas activities in any given
region, we do not think that any of these encounters had lasting
effects on individuals or groups.
Summary of Cumulative Effects--Hunting pressure, declining sea ice
due to climate change, and the expansion of commercial activities into
walrus habitat all have potential to impact walruses. Combined, these
factors are expected to present significant challenges to future walrus
conservation and management efforts. The success of future management
efforts will rely in part on continued investments in research
investigating population status and trends and habitat use patterns.
The effectiveness of various mitigation measures and management actions
will also need to be continually evaluated through monitoring programs
and adjusted as necessary. The decline in sea ice is of particular
concern, and will be considered in the evaluation of future proposed
activities and as more information on walrus population status becomes
available.
Contribution of Proposed Activities to Cumulative Impacts--The
proposed seismic surveys and exploratory drilling operations identified
by the petitioners are likely to result in some incremental cumulative
effects to walruses through the potential exclusion or avoidance of
walruses from feeding or resting areas and disruption of associated
biological behaviors. However, based on the habitat use patterns of
walruses in the Chukchi Sea and their close association with seasonal
pack ice, relatively small numbers of walruses are likely to be
encountered in the open sea conditions where most of the proposed
activities are expected to occur. Required monitoring and mitigation
measures, designed to minimize interactions between authorized projects
and
[[Page 33226]]
concentrations of resting or feeding walruses, are also expected to
limit the severity of any behavioral responses. Therefore, we conclude
that the proposed exploration activities, especially as mitigated
through the regulatory process, are not at this time expected to add
significantly to the cumulative impacts on the Pacific walrus
population from past, present, and future activities that are
reasonably likely to occur within the 5-year period covered by the
regulations if adopted.
B. Observed Impacts of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses
Oil and gas related activities have been conducted in the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas since the late 1960s. Much more oil and gas related
activity has occurred in the Beaufort Sea OCS than in the Chukchi Sea
OCS. Many offshore activities required ice management (icebreaking),
helicopter traffic, fixed-wing aircraft monitoring, other support
vessels, and stand-by barges. Although Industry has encountered Pacific
walruses while conducting exploratory activities in the Beaufort and
Chukchi seas, to date, no walruses are known to have been killed due to
encounters associated with Industry activities.
Pacific walruses do not normally range into the Beaufort Sea,
although individuals and small groups have been observed. From 1994 to
2004, Industry monitoring programs recorded a total of nine walrus
sightings involving a total of 10 animals. Three of the reported
sightings involved potential disturbances to walruses; two sightings
were of individual animals hauled-out onto the armor of Northstar
Island, and one sighting occurred at the McCovey prospect, where a
walrus appeared to react to helicopter noise. Physical effects or
impacts to individual walruses were not noted. Because of the small
numbers of walruses encountered by past and present oil and gas
activity in the Beaufort Sea, impacts to the Pacific walrus population
appear to have been minimal.
Three pre-lease seismic surveys were carried out in the Chukchi Sea
OCS planning area in 2006, where marine mammal monitoring was based on
vessel and aerial platforms. Marine mammal observers onboard the
seismic and support vessels recorded a total of 1,186 walrus sightings
during their operations. Most of the walrus sightings were reported by
seismic support vessels during ice-scouting missions. Three hundred and
eighteen of the walruses sighted (27 percent) exhibited some form of
behavioral response to the vessels, primarily dispersal or diving.
Seismic vessels, operating in open water conditions, recorded a total
of 33 walrus sightings. Marine mammal observers reported 19 incidents
in which walruses were observed within a predetermined safety zone of
ensonification, requiring the shut down of airgun arrays to prevent
potential injuries. Based upon the transitory nature of the survey
vessels, and the monitoring reports that noted behavioral reactions of
the animals to the passage of the vessels, our best assessment is that
these interactions resulted in no more than temporary changes in animal
behavior. Additionally, the 2006 Chukchi Sea aerial surveys recorded a
total of 1,882 walrus sightings. These regional aerial surveys were
conducted in support of seismic activities as part of the marine mammal
mitigation. During the three pre-lease seismic surveys conducted using
vessel and aircraft platforms, a total of 3,068 walrus were observed.
This represents a relatively small portion of the total number of
animals that occurred at low densities within the open-water study
area.
Aerial surveys and vessel-based observations of walruses were
carried out in 1989 and 1990 to examine the responses of walruses to
drilling operations at three Chukchi Sea drill prospects. Aerial
surveys documented several thousand walruses in the vicinity of the
drilling prospects; most of the animals (> 90 percent) were closely
associated with sea ice. The monitoring reports concluded that: (1)
Walrus distributions were closely linked with pack ice; (2) pack ice
was near active drill prospects for relatively short time periods; and
(3) ice passing near active prospects contained relatively few animals,
concluded that effects of the drilling operations on walruses were
limited in time, geographical scale, and proportion of the affected
population.
C. Evaluation
Based on our review of the proposed activities; existing and
proposed operating conditions and mitigation measures; information on
the biology, ecology, and habitat use patterns of walruses in the
Chukchi Sea; information on potential effects of oil and gas activities
on walruses; and the results of previous monitoring efforts associated
with Industry activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, we conclude
that, while the incidental take (by harassment) of walruses is
reasonably likely to or reasonably expected to occur as a result of the
proposed activities, most of the anticipated takes will be limited to
temporary, nonlethal disturbances impacting a relatively small numbers
of animals. Our review of the nature and scope of the proposed
activities, when considered in light of the observed impacts of past
exploration activities by Industry, indicates that it is unlikely that
there will be any lethal take of walruses associated with these
activities or any impacts on survivorship or reproduction.
Polar Bears
A. Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Polar Bears
1. Disturbance
In the Chukchi Sea, polar bears will have a limited presence during
the open-water season during Industry operations. It is assumed they
generally move to the northwestern portion of the Chukchi Sea and
distribute along the pack-ice during this time, which is outside of the
geographic region of the regulations. Additionally, they are found more
frequently along the Chukotka coastline in Russia. This limits the
chances of impacts on polar bears from Industry activities. Although
polar bears have been observed in open-water, miles from the ice edge
or ice floes, this has been a relatively rare occurrence.
Offshore Activities. In the open-water season, Industry activities
will be limited to vessel-based exploration activities, such as seismic
surveys and site clearance surveys and during the latter part of the
regulatory period, offshore exploratory drilling may occur. These
activities avoid ice floes and the multi-year ice edge; however, they
could contact a limited number of bears in open water.
Seismic exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea could affect
polar bears in a number of ways. Seismic ships and icebreakers may be
physical obstructions to polar bear movements, although these impacts
are of short-term and localized effect. Noise, sights, and smells
produced by exploration activities could repel or attract bears, either
disrupting their natural behavior or endangering them by threatening
the safety of seismic personnel.
Little research has been conducted on the effects of noise on polar
bears. Currently, researchers are studying the hearing sensitivity of
polar bears to understand how noise affects polar bears. Polar bears
are curious and tend to investigate novel sights, smells, and possibly
noises. Noise produced by seismic activities could elicit several
different responses in individual polar bears. Noise may act as a
deterrent to bears entering the area of operation, or the noise could
potentially attract curious bears.
[[Page 33227]]
In general, little is known about the potential for seismic survey
sounds to cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in polar
bears. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all,
would be limited to short distances and probably to projects involving
large airgun arrays. There is no evidence that airgun pulses can cause
serious injury, or death, even in the case of large airgun arrays.
Additionally, the planned monitoring and mitigation measures include
shut downs of the airguns, which will reduce any such effects that
might otherwise occur if polar bears are observed in the ensonification
zones. Polar bears normally swim with their heads above the surface,
where underwater noises are weak or undetectable, and this behavior may
naturally limit noise exposure to polar bears. Thus, it is doubtful
that any single bear would be exposed to strong underwater seismic
sounds long enough for significant disturbance, such as an auditory
injury, to occur.
Polar bears are known to run from sources of noise and the sight of
vessels, icebreakers, aircraft, and helicopters. The effects of fleeing
from aircraft may be minimal if the event is short and the animal is
otherwise unstressed. On a warm spring or summer day, a short run may
be enough to overheat a well-insulated polar bear; however, fleeing
from a working icebreaker may have minimal effects for a healthy animal
on a cool day.
As already stated, polar bears spend the majority of their time on
pack-ice during the open-water season in the Chukchi Sea or along the
Chukotka coast, which limits the chance of impacts from human and
Industry activities in the geographic region. In recent years, the
Chukchi Sea pack-ice has receded over the Continental Shelf during the
open water season. Although this poses potential foraging
ramifications, by its nature the exposed open water creates a barrier
between the majority of the ice pack-bound bear population and human
activity occurring in open water, thereby limiting potential
disturbance.
Researchers have observed that bears occasionally swim long
distances during the open-water period seeking either ice or land. In
2005, researchers monitored one radio-collared individual as it swam
through ice-free waters from Kotzebue north to the pack-ice 350 miles
away. The bear began swimming on June 16, 2005, rested twice in open
water (presumably on icebergs) and eventually reached the pack-ice on
July 2, 2005. Researchers suspected that the bear was not swimming
constantly, but found solitary icebergs or remnants to haul-out on and
rest. The movement is unusual, but highlights the ice-free environment
that bears are being increasingly exposed to that requires increased
energy demands.
Seismic activities avoid ice floes and the pack-ice edge; however,
they may contact bears in open water. It is unlikely that seismic
exploration activities would result in more than temporary behavioral
disturbance to polar bears.
Vessel traffic could result in short-term behavioral disturbance to
polar bears. If a ship is surrounded by ice, it is more likely that
curious bears will approach. Any on-ice activities required by
exploration activities create the opportunity for bear-human
interactions. In relatively ice-free waters, polar bears are less
likely to approach ships, although they could be encountered on ice
floes. For example, during the late 1980s, at the Belcher exploration
drilling site in the Beaufort Sea, in a period of little ice, a large
floe threatened the drill rig at the site. After the floe was moved by
an ice breaker, workers noticed a female bear with a cub-of-the-year
and a lone adult swimming nearby. It was assumed these bears had been
disturbed from the ice floe.
Ships and ice breakers may act as physical obstructions, altering
or intercepting bear movements in the spring during the start-up period
for exploration if they transit through a restricted lead system, such
as the Chukchi Polynya. Polynyas are important habitat for ice seals
and walrus, which makes them important hunting areas for polar bears. A
similar situation could occur in the fall when the pack-ice begins to
expand. The separation of polar bears, whether on land, on ice, or in
water, and marine vessels by creating an operational exclusion zone
would limit potential impact of marine vessels to polar bears.
High altitude routine aircraft traffic appears to have little to no
effect on polar bears; however, extensive or repeated over-flights of
fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters could disturb polar bears.
Behavioral reactions of polar bears are expected to be limited to
short-term changes in behavior that would have no long-term impact on
individuals and no identifiable impacts on the polar bear population.
In the later years of the regulations, offshore exploratory
drilling may occur during the open water seasons. Disturbances to polar
bears by vessel and aircraft traffic used in support of exploratory
drilling would be similar to those that have already been described.
Monitoring and mitigation measures required for open water,
offshore activities will include, but will not be limited to: (1) A
0.5-mile operational exclusion zone around polar bear(s) on land, ice,
or swimming; (2) MMOs on board all vessels; (3) requirements for ice-
scouting; (4) surveys for polar bears in the vicinity of active
operations and ice breaking activities; and (5) operational
restrictions near polar bear aggregations. These mitigation measures
are expected to further reduce the potential for interactions between
polar bears and offshore operations.
Onshore Activities. Onshore activities will have the potential to
interact with polar bears mainly during the fall and ice-covered season
when bears come ashore to feed, den, or travel. Noise produced by
Industry activities during the open-water and ice-covered seasons could
potentially result in takes of polar bears at onshore activities.
During the ice-covered season, denning female bears, as well as mobile,
non-denning bears, could be exposed to oil and gas activities, such as
seismic exploration or exploratory drilling facilities, and could
potentially be affected in different ways.
Noise disturbance can originate from either stationary or mobile
sources. Stationary sources include exploratory drilling operations and
their associated facilities. Mobile sources can include vehicle and
aircraft traffic in association with Industry activities, such as ice
road construction and vibroseis programs.
Noise produced by stationary Industry activities could elicit
several different responses in polar bears. The noise may act as a
deterrent to bears entering the area, or the noise could potentially
attract bears. Attracting bears to these facilities, especially
exploration facilities in the coastal or nearshore environment, could
result in human-bear encounters, which could result in unintentional
harassment, lethal take, or intentional hazing (under separate
authorization) of the bear.
During the ice-covered season, noise and vibration from exploratory
drilling facilities could deter females from denning in the surrounding
area, although polar bears have been known to den in proximity to
industrial activities without any perceived impacts. For example, in
1991, two maternity dens were located on the south shore of a barrier
island within 2.8 km (1.7 mi) of an already established production
facility. In addition, during the ice-covered season of 2001-2002, two
known polar bear dens were located within approximately 0.4 km and 0.8
km (0.25 mi and 0.5 mi) of remediation activities on Flaxman Island
that were initiated after denning presumably
[[Page 33228]]
occurred. Through increased monitoring efforts, there were no observed
impacts to denning success or the polar bears.
In contrast, information exists indicating that polar bears may
have abandoned dens in the past due to exposure to human disturbance.
For example, in January 1985, a female polar bear may have abandoned
her den due to rolligon traffic, which occurred between 250 and 500
meters from the den site. Researcher disturbance created by camp
proximity and associated noise, which occurred during a den emergence
study in 2002 on the North Slope, may have caused a female bear and her
cub(s) to abandon their den and move to the ice sooner than necessary.
The female was observed later without the cub(s). While such events
caused by Industry-related activities may have occurred in the Beaufort
Sea, information indicates they have been infrequent and isolated.
In addition, polar bears exposed to routine industrial noises may
acclimate to those noises and show less vigilance than bears not
exposed to such stimuli. This implication came from a study that
occurred in conjunction with industrial activities performed on Flaxman
Island in 2002 and a study of undisturbed dens in 2002 and 2003 (N =
8). Researchers assessed vigilant behavior with two potential measures
of disturbance: (1) Proportion of time scanning their surroundings and
(2) frequency of observable vigilant behaviors. Bears exposed to
industrial activity spent less time scanning their surroundings than
bears in undisturbed areas and engaged in vigilant behavior
significantly less often.
As with offshore activities, routine high-altitude aircraft traffic
should have little to no effect on polar bears; however, extensive or
repeated low- altitude over-flights of fixed-wing aircraft for
monitoring purposes or helicopters used for re-supply of Industry
operations could disturb polar bears. Behavioral reactions of non-
denning polar bears are expected to be limited to short-term changes in
behavior and would have no long-term impact on individuals and no
impacts on the polar bear population. In contrast, denning bears could
abandon or depart their dens early in response to repeated noise such
as that produced by extensive aircraft over-flights occurring in close
proximity to the den. Mitigation measures, such as minimum flight
elevations over polar bears or areas of concern and flight restrictions
around known polar bear dens, will be required, as appropriate, to
reduce the likelihood that bears are disturbed by aircraft.
Noise and vibrations produced by vibroseis activities during the
ice-covered season could potentially result in impacts on polar bears.
During this time of year, denning female bears as well as mobile, non-
denning bears could be exposed to and affected differently by potential
impacts from seismic activities. The best available scientific
information indicates that female polar bears entering dens, or females
in dens with cubs, are more sensitive to noises than other age and sex
groups. Standardized mitigation measures will be implemented to limit
or minimize disturbance impacts to denning females. These Industry
mitigation measures are currently in place in the Beaufort Sea and are
implemented when necessary through LOAs. They will be implemented in
the Chukchi Sea geographic region when necessary as well.
In the case of exploratory seismic or drilling activities occurring
around a known bear den, each LOA will require Industry to have
developed a polar bear interaction plan and will require Industry to
maintain a 1-mile buffer between Industry activities and known denning
sites to limit disturbance to the bear. In addition, we may require
Industry to avoid working in known denning habitat depending on the
type of activity, the location of activity, and the timing of the
activity. To further reduce the potential for disturbance to denning
females, we have conducted research, in cooperation with Industry, to
enable us to accurately detect active polar bear dens through the use
of Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) imagery.
The FLIR imagery, as a mitigation tool, is used in cooperation with
coastal polar bear denning habitat maps and scent-trained dogs.
Industry activity areas, such as coastal ice roads and transitory
exploratory activities, are compared to polar bear denning habitat, and
transects are then created to survey the specific habitat within the
Industry area. The FLIR heat signatures within a standardized den
protocol are noted, and further mitigation measures are placed around
these locations if dens are apparent. These measures include the 1-mile
operational exclusion zone or increased monitoring of the site. FLIR
surveys are more effective at detecting polar bear dens than visual
observations. The effectiveness increases when FLIR surveys are
combined with site-specific, scent-trained dog surveys.
Based on these evaluations, the use of FLIR technology, coupled
with trained dogs, to locate or verify occupied polar bear dens is a
viable technique that helps to minimize impacts of Industry activities
on denning polar bears. These techniques will continue to be required
as conditions of LOAs, when appropriate.
In addition, Industry has sponsored cooperative research evaluating
transmission of noise and vibration through the ground, snow, ice, and
air and the received levels of noise and vibration in polar bear dens.
This information has been useful to refine site-specific mitigation
measures and placement of facilities.
Furthermore, as part of the LOA application for seismic surveys
during denning season, Industry provides us with the proposed seismic
survey routes. To minimize the likelihood of disturbance to denning
females, we evaluate these routes along with information about known
polar bear dens, historic denning sites, and delineated denning
habitat. Should a potential denning site be identified along the survey
route, FLIR or polar bear scent-trained dogs, or both, will be used to
determine whether the den is occupied, in which case a 1-mile buffer
surrounding the den will be required.
There is the potential for Industry activities other than seismic,
such as transport activities and ice road construction, to contact
polar bear dens as well. Known polar bear dens around the oil and gas
activities are monitored by the Service, when practicable. Only a small
percentage of the total active den locations are known in any year.
Industry routinely coordinates with the Service to determine the
location of Industry's activities relative to known dens and den
habitat. General LOA provisions will be similar to those imposed on
seismic activities and will require Industry operations to avoid known
polar bear dens by 1 mile. There is the possibility that an unknown den
may be encountered during Industry activities. Industry is required to
contact the Service if a previously unknown den is identified.
Communication between Industry and the Service and the implementation
of mitigation measures, such as the 1-mile operational exclusion area
around known dens or the temporary cessation of Industry activities,
would ensure that disturbance is minimized.
Human encounters can be dangerous for both the polar bear and the
human and are another type of onshore disturbance. These can occur
during any onshore Industry activity. Whenever humans work in the
habitat of the animal, there is a chance of an encounter, even though,
historically, such encounters have been uncommon in association with
Industry.
[[Page 33229]]
Encounters are more likely to occur during fall and winter periods
when greater numbers of bears are found in the coastal environment
searching for food and possibly den sites later in the season.
Potentially dangerous encounters are most likely to occur at coastal
exploratory sites because a higher percentage of bears transit through
the coastal areas, rather than inland, and because of the temporary
nature of exploratory activities. In the Beaufort Sea, Industry has
developed and uses devices to aid in detecting polar bears, including
human bear monitors, motion and infrared detection systems, and closed-
circuit TV systems. Industry also takes steps to actively prevent bears
from accessing facilities using safety gates and fences. The types of
detection and exclusion systems are implemented on a case-by-case basis
with guidance from the Service and depend on the location and needs of
the facility. Industry will implement these same mitigative measures
onshore in the Chukchi Sea region to minimize disturbance of polar
bears.
Onshore drilling sites near the coastline could potentially attract
polar bears. Polar bears use the coastline as a travel corridor. In the
Beaufort Sea, the majority of polar bear observations have occurred
along the coastline. Most bears were observed as passing through the
area; however, nearshore facilities could potentially increase the rate
of human-bear encounters, which could result in increased incidents of
harassment of bears. Employee training and company policies through
interaction plans will be implemented to reduce and mitigate such
encounters. In the Beaufort Sea region, the history of the effective
application of interaction plans has shown reduced interactions between
polar bears and humans and no injuries or deaths to humans since the
implementation of incidental take regulations. Therefore, the Service
concludes that interaction plans are an effective means of reducing
Industry impacts to polar bears.
Depending upon the circumstances, bears can be either repelled from
or attracted to sounds, smells, or sights associated with onshore
Industry activities. In the past, such interactions have been mitigated
through conditions on the LOA, which require the applicant to develop a
polar bear interaction plan for each operation. These plans outline the
steps the applicant will take, such as garbage disposal, attractant
management, and snow management procedures, to minimize impacts to
polar bears by reducing the attraction of Industry activities to polar
bears. Interaction plans also outline the chain of command for
responding to a polar bear sighting. In addition to interaction plans,
Industry personnel participate in polar bear interaction training while
on site.
Employee training programs are designed to educate field personnel
about the dangers of bear encounters and to implement safety procedures
in the event of a bear sighting. The result of these polar bear
interaction plans and training allows personnel on site to detect bears
and respond safely and appropriately. Often, personnel are instructed
to leave an area where bears are seen. Many times polar bears are
monitored until they move out of the area. Sometimes, this response
involves deterring the bear from the site. If it is not possible to
leave, in most cases bears can be displaced by using forms of
deterrents, such as vehicles, vehicle horn, vehicle siren, vehicle
lights, spot lights, or, if necessary, pyrotechnics (e.g., cracker
shells). The purpose of these plans and training is to eliminate the
potential for injury to personnel or lethal take of bears in defense of
human life. Since 1993, when the incidental take regulations became
effective in the Beaufort Sea, there has been no known instance of a
bear being killed or Industry personnel being injured by a bear as a
result of Industry activities. The mitigation measures associated with
the Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations have proven to minimize
human-bear interactions and will be part of the requirements of future
LOAs associated with the Chukchi Sea incidental take regulations.
Effect on Prey Species. Ringed seals are the primary prey of polar
bears. Bearded seals are also a prey source. Industry will mainly have
an effect on seals through the potential for contamination (oil spills)
or industrial noise disturbance. Oil and gas activities in the Chukchi
Sea are anticipated to have the same effects of contamination from oil
discharges for seals as those described in the current Beaufort Sea
incidental take regulations (71 FR 43926; August 2, 2006) in the
section ``Potential Impacts of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills
on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears'' and the ``Pacific Walruses''
subsection of that document. Studies have shown that seals can be
displaced from certain areas, such as pupping lairs or haul-outs, and
may abandon breathing holes near Industry activity. However, these
disturbances appear to have minor effects and are short term. In the
Chukchi Sea, offshore operations have the highest potential to impact
seals; however, due to the seasonal aspect (occurring only during the
open-water season) of offshore operations, the Service anticipates
minimal disturbance to ringed and bearded seals. In addition, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), having jurisdiction over the
conservation and management of ringed and bearded seals, will evaluate
the potential impacts of oil and gas exploration activities in the
Chukchi Sea through their appropriate authorization process and will
identify appropriate mitigation measures for those species, if a
negligible finding is appropriate. The Service does not expect prey
availability to be significantly changed due to Industry activities.
Mitigation measures for pinnipeds required by MMS and NMFS will reduce
the impact of Industry activities on ringed and bearded seals.
2. Waste Discharge and Potential Oil Spills
Individual polar bears can potentially be affected by Industry
activities through waste product discharge and oil spills. Spills are
unintentional releases of oil or petroleum products. In accordance with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program, all
North Slope oil companies must submit an oil spill contingency plan
with their projects. It is illegal to discharge oil into the
environment, and a reporting system requires operators to report
spills.
According to MMS, on the Beaufort and Chukchi OCS, the oil industry
has drilled 35 exploratory wells. During the time of this drilling,
Industry has had 35 small spills totaling 26.7 bbl or 1,120 gallons
(gal) in the Beaufort and Chukchi OCS. Of the 26.7 bbl spilled,
approximately 24 bbl were recovered or cleaned up. Larger spills
(>=1,000 bbl) accounted for much of the annual volume. Six large spills
occurred between 1985 and 2006 on the North Slope. These spills were
terrestrial in nature and posed minimal harm to walruses and polar
bears. Based on the history of effective application of oil spill
plans, to date, no major exploratory offshore oil spills have occurred
on the North Slope in either the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas.
Historical large spills (greater than 1,000 bbl) associated with
Alaskan oil and gas activities on the North Slope have been production-
related, and have occurred at production facilities or pipeline
connecting wells to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. MMS estimates the
chance of a large (greater than 1,000 bbl) oil spill from exploratory
activities in the Chukchi Sea to be low based on the types of spills
recorded in the Beaufort Sea. For this rule, potential oil spills for
exploration activities will
[[Page 33230]]
likely occur with the marine vessels. From past experiences, MMS
believes these will most likely be localized and relatively small.
Spills in the offshore or onshore environments classified as small
could occur during normal operations (e.g., transfer of fuel, handling
of lubricants and liquid products, and general maintenance of
equipment). There is a greater potential for large spills in the
Chukchi Sea region from drilling platforms. However, exploratory
drilling platforms have required containment ability in case of a
blowout as part of their oil spill contingency plan, which means that
the likelihood of a large release remains minimal.
The possibility of oil and waste product spills from Industry
activities in the Chukchi Sea and the subsequent impacts on polar bears
is a concern; however, given the seasonal nature of the requested
Industry activities, the potential for negative impacts will be
minimized. During the open-water season (June to October), there is
some potential for spills from offshore Industry activities. At this
time, bears in the open water or on land may encounter and be affected
by any such oil spill. During the ice-covered season (November to May),
onshore Industry activities will have the greatest likelihood of
exposing transiting polar bears to potential oil spills. Although the
majority of the Chukchi Sea polar bear population spends a large amount
of time offshore on the annual or multi-year pack-ice and along the
Russian coastline, some bears could encounter oil from a spill
regardless of the season and location.
Small spills of oil or waste products throughout the year by
Industry activities on land could potentially impact small numbers of
bears. The effects of fouling fur or ingesting oil or wastes, depending
on the amount of oil or wastes involved, could be short term or result
in death. For example, in April 1988, a dead polar bear was found on
Leavitt Island, in the Beaufort Sea, approximately 9.3 km (5 nautical
miles) northeast of Oliktok Point. The cause of death was determined to
be poisoning by a mixture that included ethylene glycol and Rhodamine B
dye; however, the source of the mixture was unknown.
During the ice-covered season, mobile, non-denning bears would have
a higher probability of encountering oil or other Industry wastes in
the onshore environment than non-mobile, denning females. Current
management practices by Industry, such as requiring the proper use,
storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, minimize the potential
occurrence of such incidents. In the event of an oil spill, it is also
likely that polar bears would be intentionally hazed to keep them away
from the area, further reducing the likelihood of impacting individuals
or the population.
Oil exposure by polar bears could occur through the consumption of
contaminated prey, and by grooming or nursing, which could affect
motility, digestion, and absorption. Death could occur if a large
amount of oil were ingested. Oiling can also cause thermoregulatory
problems and damage to various systems, such as the respiratory and the
central nervous systems, depending on the amount of exposure. Oil may
also affect the prey base of polar bears where possible impacts from
the loss of a food source could reduce recruitment or survival of polar
bears. A detailed description of potential effects of exposure to oil
by polar bears can be found in the preamble to the Beaufort Sea
Incidental Take Regulations (71 FR 43926; August 2, 2006).
3. Cumulative Effects
The Polar Bear Status Review describes cumulative effects of oil
and gas development on polar bears in Alaska (see pages 175 to 181 of
the status review). This document can be found at: http://
alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm. The status review
concentrated on oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea because of
the established presence of the Industry in the Beaufort Sea. The
Service believes the conclusions of the status review will apply to
Industry activities in the Chukchi Sea during the 5-year regulatory
period because the exploratory activities in the Beaufort Sea are
similar to those proposed in the Chukchi Sea.
In addition, in 2003 the National Research Council published a
description of the cumulative effects that oil and gas development
would have on polar bears and seals in Alaska. They concluded that:
(1) ``Industrial activity in the marine waters of the Beaufort Sea
has been limited and sporadic and likely has not caused serious
cumulative effects to ringed seals or polar bears.'' Industry activity
in the Chukchi Sea during the regulatory period will be limited to
exploration activities, such as seismic, drilling, and support vessels.
(2) ``Careful mitigation can help to reduce the effects of oil and
gas development and their accumulation, especially if there is no major
oil spill.'' The Service will be using mitigation measures similar to
those established in the Beaufort Sea to limit impacts of polar bears
in the Chukchi Sea. ``However, the effects of full-scale industrial
development off the North Slope would accumulate through the
displacement of polar bears and ringed seals from their habitats,
increased mortality, and decreased reproductive success.'' Full-scale
development of this nature will not occur during the prescribed
regulatory period in the Chukchi Sea.
(3) ``A major Beaufort Sea oil spill would have major effects on
polar bears and ringed seals.'' One of the concerns for future oil and
gas development is for those activities that occur in the marine
environment due to the chance for oil spills to impact polar bears or
their habitats. No production activities are planned for the Chukchi
Sea during the duration of these regulations. Oil spills as a result of
exploratory seismic activity could occur in the Chukchi Sea; however,
the probability of a large spill is expected to be minimal.
(4) ``Climatic warming at predicted rates in the Beaufort and
Chukchi sea regions is likely to have serious consequences for ringed
seals and polar bears, and those effects will accumulate with the
effects of oil and gas activities in the region.''
(5) ``Unless studies to address the potential accumulation of
effects on North Slope polar bears or ringed seals are designed,
funded, and conducted over long periods of time, it will be impossible
to verify whether such effects occur, to measure them, or to explain
their causes.'' Future studies in the Chukchi Sea will examine polar
bear habitat use and distribution, reproduction, and survival relative
to a changing sea ice environment.
A detailed description of climate change and its potential effects
on polar bears by the Service can be found in the documents supporting
the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the
ESA at http://www.fws.gov/. Additional detailed information by the USGS
regarding the status of the SBS stock in relation to decreasing sea ice
due to increasing temperatures in the Arctic, projections of habitat
and populations, and forecasts of rangewide status can be found at:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar--bears. These factors could
alter polar bear habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended
duration of open water, may preclude sea ice habitat use by restricting
some bears to coastal areas. Biological effects on polar bears are
expected to include increased movements or travel, changes in bear
distribution throughout their range, changes to the access and
allocation of denning areas, and increased open
[[Page 33231]]
water swimming. Demographic effects that may be changed due to climate
change include changes in prey availability to polar bears, a potential
reduction in the access to prey, and changes in seal productivity.
Locally in the Chukchi Sea, it is expected that the reduction of
sea ice extent will affect the timing of polar bear seasonal movements
between the coastal regions and the pack-ice. If the sea ice continues
to recede as predicted, the Service anticipates that there may be an
increased use of terrestrial habitat in the fall period by polar bears
on the western coast of Alaska and an increased use of terrestrial
habitat by denning bears in the same area, which may expose bears to
Industry activity. Mitigation measures will be effective in minimizing
any additional effects attributed to seasonal shifts in distributions
of denning polar bears during the 5-year timeframe of the regulations.
It is likely that, due to potential seasonal changes in abundance and
distribution of polar bears during the fall, more frequent encounters
may occur and that Industry may have to implement mitigation measures
more often, for example, increasing polar bear deterrence events. In
addition, if additional polar bear den locations are detected within
industrial activity areas, spatial and temporal mitigation measures,
including cessation of activities, may be instituted more frequently
during the 5-year period of the rule. As with the Beaufort Sea, the
challenge in the Chukchi Sea will be predicting changes in ice habitat
and coastal habitats in relation to changes in polar bear distribution
and use of habitat.
The proposed activities (seismic surveys and exploratory drilling
operations) identified by the petitioners are likely to result in some
incremental cumulative effects to polar bears during the 5-year
regulatory period. This could occur through the potential exclusion or
avoidance of polar bears from feeding, resting, or denning areas and
disruption of associated biological behaviors. However, the level of
cumulative effects, including those of climate change, during the 5-
year regulatory period would result in less than negligible effects on
the bear population.
B. Observed Impacts of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Polar Bears
Information regarding interactions between oil and gas activities
and polar bears in Canada, the Beaufort Sea, and the Chukchi Sea has
been collected for several decades. This information is useful in
predicting how polar bears are likely to be affected by the proposed
activities.
In 1990, in conjunction with the Shell Western E&P, Inc. walrus
monitoring program, a total of 25 polar bears were observed on the pack
ice in the Chukchi Sea between June 29 and August 11, 1990. Seventeen
bears were encountered by the support vessel, Robert LeMeur, during an
ice reconnaissance survey before drilling began at the prospects.
During drilling operations, four bears were observed near (<9 km or 5 n
mi) active prospects, and the remainder were considerably beyond (15-40
km or 8-22 n mi.). These bears responded to the drilling or icebreaking
operations by approaching (two bears), watching (nine bears), slowly
moving away (seven bears), or ignoring (five bears) the activities;
response was not evaluated for two bears. The period of exposure to the
operations was generally short because precautions were taken to
minimize disturbances, including adjusting cruise courses away from
bears. Similar precautions were followed in 1989, when 18 bears were
sighted in the Chukchi pack ice during the monitoring program. The
researchers of the 1990 monitoring program concluded that: (1) Polar
bear distributions were closely linked to the pack ice; (2) the pack
ice was near the active prospects for a relatively brief time; and (3)
the ice passing near active prospects contained relatively few animals.
In 2006, four individual polar bears were sighted during three oil
and gas seismic surveys on the Chukchi Sea. All the bears were observed
by seismic support vessels. Three of the four bears were observed
walking on ice, and one animal was observed swimming. Two of the four
reacted to the vessel by distancing itself from the vessel. All four
sightings occurred between September 2 and October 3, 2006.
Five polar bear observations (11 individuals) were recorded during
the University of Texas at Austin's marine geophysical survey performed
by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Cutter Healy in 2006. This survey was
located in the northern Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean. All bears were
observed on the ice between July 21 and August 19. No polar bears were
in the water where they could have been subject to appreciable noise
levels from operating airguns. The closest point of approach distances
of bears from the Healy ranged from 780 m to 2.5 km. One bear was
observed approximately 575 m from a helicopter conducting ice
reconnaissance. Four of the groups exhibited possible reactions to the
helicopter or vessel, suggesting that disturbances from seismic
operations can be short-term and limited to minor changes in behavior.
In 2007, at the Intrepid exploration site located on the Chukchi
Sea coast south of Barrow, a female bear and her cub were observed
approximately 100 meters near a pad. The bear did not appear concerned
about the activity and, while being observed by a bear monitor, the
female changed her direction of movement and left the area. This is
another example of a polar bear expressing minimal behavior change due
to an interaction with Industry and it is similar to encounters between
polar bears and Industry that have been documented in the Beaufort Sea.
Additional information exists on Industry and polar bear encounters
in the Beaufort Sea. Documented impacts on polar bears by the oil and
gas industry in the Beaufort Sea during the past 30 years appear
minimal. Polar bears spend time on land, coming ashore to feed, den, or
move to other areas. Recent studies suggest that bears are spending
more time on land than they have in the past, perhaps in response to
changing ice conditions.
Annual monitoring reports from Industry activities and community
observations indicate that fall storms force bears to concentrate along
the coastline where bears remain until the ice returns. For this
reason, polar bears have been encountered at or near most coastal and
offshore production facilities, or along the roads and causeways that
link these facilities to the mainland. During those periods, the
likelihood of interactions between polar bears and Industry activities
increases. From Industry monitoring reports most bears are observed
within a mile of the coastline. Similarly, we expect intermittent
periods with high concentrations of bears to occur along the Chukchi
Sea coastline.
The majority of actual impacts on polar bears in the Beaufort Sea
have resulted from direct human-bear encounters. Monitoring efforts by
Industry required under Beaufort Sea regulations for the incidental
take of polar bears resulted in the documentation of various types of
interactions between polar bears and Industry. A total of 269 LOAs have
been issued for incidental (unintentional) take of polar bears in
regard to oil and gas activities between 1993 to 2005; approximately 76
percent were for exploration activities.
In 2004, the most recent year where records are complete, the oil
and gas industry reported 89 polar bear sightings involving 113
individual bears. Polar bears were more frequently
[[Page 33232]]
sighted from August to January. Seventy-four sightings were of single
bears, and 15 sightings consisted of family groups. Offshore oil
facilities, Northstar and Endicott, accounted for 63 percent of all
polar bear sightings, 42 percent and 21 percent, respectively. This
shows that Industry activities that occur on or near the Beaufort Sea
coast have a greater probability of encountering polar bears than
Industry activities occurring inland. Fifty-nine percent (n=53) of
polar bear sightings consisted of observations of polar bears traveling
through or resting near the monitored areas without a perceived
reaction to human presence. Forty-one percent (n=36) of polar bear
sightings involved Level B harassment, where bears were deterred from
industrial areas with no injury.
We expect similar trends in the coastal areas of the Chukchi Sea.
These include a higher frequency of polar bears observed on land during
the fall and early winter months, single bears seen more frequently
than family groups, and a higher percentage of bears observed moving
passively through Industry areas than the percentage of bears involved
in interactions.
Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal takes by Industry were
rare. Since 1968, there have been only two documented cases of lethal
take of polar bears associated with oil and gas activities. In both
instances, the lethal take was reported to be in defense of human life.
In winter 1968-1969, an Industry employee shot and killed a polar bear.
In 1990, a female polar bear was killed at an exploratory drill site on
the west side of Camden Bay. In contrast, 33 polar bears were killed in
the Canadian Northwest Territories from 1976 to 1986 due to encounters
with Industry. Since the beginning of the incidental take program,
which includes measures that minimize impacts to the species, no polar
bears have been killed due to encounters associated with Industry
activities on the North Slope. For this reason, Industry has requested
that these regulations cover only nonlethal, incidental take. We
anticipate this nonlethal trend to continue in the Chukchi Sea.
C. Evaluation
The Service anticipates that potential impacts of seismic noise,
physical obstructions, human encounters, changes in distribution or
numbers of prey species, oil spills, and cumulative effects on polar
bears would be limited to short-term changes in behavior that would
have no long-term impact on individuals or identifiable impacts to the
polar bear population during the 5-year regulatory period. Individual
polar bears may be observed in the open water during offshore
activities in Alaska waters, but the vast majority of the bear
populations will be found on the pack-ice or along the Chukotka
coastline in Russia during this time of year. These locations are not
near the proposed Industry activities. Because there will be few
encounters, and mitigation measures will be in place, it is unlikely
that there will be any lethal take due to Industry activities. Our
experience in the Beaufort Sea similarly suggests that there is
unlikely to be any lethal take of bears due to Industry exploratory
activity.
Potential impacts to bears will be mitigated through various
requirements stipulated within LOAs. Mitigation measures that will be
required for all projects include a polar bear interaction plan and a
record of communication with affected villages that may serve as the
precursor to a POC with the village to mitigate effects of the project
on subsistence activities. Mitigation measures that will be used on a
case-by-case basis include the use of trained marine mammal observers
associated with offshore, marine activities; bear monitors for onshore
activities; the use of den habitat maps (where appropriate); the use of
FLIR or polar bear scent-trained dogs to determine the presence or
absence of dens; timing of the activity to limit disturbance around
dens; the 1-mile buffer surrounding known dens; and suggested work
actions around known dens. The Service implements certain mitigation
measures based on need and effectiveness for specific activities based
largely on timing and location. For example, the Service will implement
different mitigation measures for a 2-month-long onshore exploration
project 20 miles inland, than for an offshore drilling project. Based
on past monitoring information, bears are more prevalent in the coastal
areas than 20 miles inland. Therefore, the monitoring and mitigation
measures that the Service deems appropriate must be implemented to
limit the disturbance to bears, and the measures deemed necessary to
limit human-bear interactions may differ.
Potential impacts of Industry waste products and oil spills suggest
that individual bears could be impacted by this type of disturbance
were it to occur. Depending on the amount of oil or wastes involved,
and the timing and location of a spill, impacts could be short-term,
chronic, or lethal. In order for bear population reproduction or
survival to be impacted, a large-volume oil spill would have to take
place. According to MMS, during exploratory activities, the probability
of a large oil spill occurring throughout the duration of these
proposed regulations (five years) is very small. In addition, protocols
for controlling waste products in project permits will limit exposure
of bears to the waste products. Oil spill contingency plans are
authorized by project permitting agencies and, if necessary, will also
limit the exposure of bears to oil.
Furthermore, mitigation measures imposed through MMS lease
stipulations are designed to avoid Level A harassment (injury), reduce
Level B harassment, reduce the potential for population-level
significant adverse effects on polar bears, and avoid an unmitigable
adverse impact on their availability for subsistence purposes.
Additional mitigation measures described in the rule will help reduce
the level of Industry impacts to polar bears during the exploration
activities through the promulgation of incidental take regulations and
the issuance of LOAs with site-specific operating restrictions and
monitoring requirements, which will provide mitigation and protection
for polar bears. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed exploration
activities, as mitigated through the regulatory process, will impact
relatively small numbers of animals, are not expected to have more than
negligible impacts on polar bears in the Chukchi Sea and will not have
any significant, adverse impact on the availability of polar bears for
subsistence uses.
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Subsistence
Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Walruses and polar bear have cultural and subsistence significance
to the Inupiat Eskimos inhabiting the north coast of Alaska. Four North
Slope communities are considered within the potentially affected area
of Industry activities: Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow.
The open-water season for oil and gas exploration activities coincides
with peak walrus hunting activities in these communities. The
subsistence harvest of polar bears can occur year round in the Chukchi
Sea, depending on ice conditions, with peaks usually occurring in
spring and fall.
Noise and disturbances associated with oil and gas exploration
activities have the potential to adversely impact subsistence harvests
of walruses and polar bears by displacing animals beyond the hunting
range of these communities. Disturbances associated with exploration
activities could also
[[Page 33233]]
heighten the sensitivity of animals to humans with potential impacts to
hunting success. Little information is available to predict the effects
of exploration activities on the subsistence harvest of walruses and
polar bears. Hunting success varies considerably from year to year
because of variable ice and weather conditions. Changing walrus
distributions due to declining sea ice may also directly affect hunting
opportunities. As ice retreats past the continental shelf, walrus have
limited places to haul-out at sea to rest. In 2007, multiple new and
larger terrestrial haul-outs were documented. These terrestrial haul-
outs allowed for increased access to walrus for subsistence harvests.
The MMS and the petitioners believe that exploration activities can
be conducted in a manner that will not result in an adverse impact on
subsistence hunting of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea. Lease Sale
Area 193 includes a 25-mile coastal deferral zone, i.e., no lease sales
will be offered within 25 miles of the coast, which is expected to
reduce the impacts of exploration activities on subsistence hunting.
Offshore seismic exploration will be restricted prior to July 1 of each
open water season to allow migrating marine mammals the opportunity to
disperse from the coastal zone. It is noted that support vessels and
aircrafts are expected to regularly transit the coastal deferral zone
and have the potential to disturb marine mammals in coastal hunting
areas. The MMS Lease stipulations will require lessees to consult with
the subsistence communities of Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, and Point
Hope prior to submitting an Operational Plan to MMS for exploration
activities. The intent of these consultations is to identify any
potential conflicts between proposed exploration activities and
subsistence hunting opportunities in the coastal communities. Where
potential conflicts are identified, MMS may require additional
mitigation measures as identified by NMFS and the Service through MMPA
authorizations.
In addition to the existing MMS lease stipulations and mitigation
measures described above, the Service has also developed additional
mitigation measures that will be implemented through these incidental
take regulations. The following LOA stipulations, which will mitigate
potential impacts to subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting from the
proposed activities, apply to incidental take authorizations:
(1) Prior to receipt of an LOA, applicants must contact and consult
with the communities of Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow
through their local government organizations to identify any additional
measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts to subsistence hunters
in these communities. A POC will be developed if there is a general
concern from the community that the proposed activities will impact
subsistence uses of Pacific walruses or polar bears. The POC must
address how applicants will work with the affected Native communities
and what actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence
hunting of walruses and polar bears. The Service will review the POC
prior to issuance of the LOA to ensure that any potential adverse
effects on the availability of the animals are minimized.
(2) Take authorization will not be granted for activities in the
marine environment which occur within a 40-mile radius of Barrow,
Wainwright, Point Hope, or Point Lay, unless expressly authorized by
these communities through consultations or through a POC. This
condition is intended to limit potential interactions between Industry
activities and subsistence hunting in near-shore environments.
(3) Offshore seismic exploration activities will be authorized only
during the open-water season, which will not exceed the period of July
1 to November 30. This condition is intended to allow communities the
opportunity to participate in subsistence hunts for polar bears without
interference and to minimize impacts to walruses during the spring
migration. Exemption waivers to this operating condition may be issued
by the Service on a case-by-case basis, based upon a review of seasonal
ice conditions and available information on walrus and polar bear
distributions in the area of interest.
(4) A 15-mile separation must be maintained between all active
seismic surveys and/or exploratory drilling operations to mitigate
cumulative impacts to resting, feeding, and migrating walruses.
Evaluation
Based on the best scientific information available and the results
of harvest data, including affected villages, the number of animals
harvested, the season of the harvests, and the location of hunting
areas, we find that the effects of the proposed exploration activities
in the Chukchi Sea region would not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of walruses and polar bears for taking for
subsistence uses during the period of the rule. In making this finding,
we considered the following: (1) Historical data regarding the timing
and location of harvests; (2) effectiveness of mitigation measures
stipulated by MMS-issued operational permits; (3) Service regulations
to be codified at 50 CFR 18.118 for obtaining an LOA, which include
requirements for community consultations and POCs, as appropriate,
between the applicants and affected Native communities; (4)
effectiveness of mitigation measures stipulated by Service-issued LOAs;
and (5) anticipated effects of the applicants' proposed activities on
the distribution and abundance of walruses and polar bears.
Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Small Numbers Determination
As discussed in the ``Biological Information'' section, the dynamic
nature of sea ice habitats influences seasonal and annual distribution
and abundance of polar bears and walruses in the specified geographical
region (eastern Chukchi Sea). The following five-factor analysis
demonstrates that only small numbers of Pacific walrus and polar bears
are likely to be taken incidental to the described Industry activities
relative to the number of walruses and polar bears that are expected to
be unaffected by those activities. This analysis is based upon known
distribution patterns and habitat use of Pacific walruses and polar
bears.
1. The number of walruses and polar bears occupying the specified
geographical region during the open water exploration season is
expected to be proportionally smaller than the number of animals
distributed in other regions. During the summer months, the Pacific
walrus population ranges well beyond the boundaries of the OCS lease
sale area. Over the past decade, significant concentrations of animals
have been observed during the open-water season at coastal haul-outs
along the northern coastline of Chukotka, Russia, presumably in
response to low ice concentrations in offshore areas. There are no
recent aerial surveys along the western (Russian) portion of the
Chukchi Sea, however, observations by hunters in 2007 noted an
estimated 75,000 to 100,000 walruses on haul-outs along the Russian
coastline. In comparison, aerial surveys in the U.S. sector of the
Chukchi Sea in 2007 estimated 2,000-5,000 walruses were using coastal
haul-outs along the Chukchi Sea coast of Alaska. Several tens of
thousands of walruses (primarily bulls) are also known to use coastal
haul-outs south of the Chukchi, in the Bering Sea, during the ice free
season.
[[Page 33234]]
Based on this distribution information, we can infer that the number of
walrus expected in the area of operation during the open water season
when no ice is present is at least an order of magnitude less than the
number of walrus utilizing pack ice and land habitats outside the
proposed area of operations.
Polar bears also range well beyond the boundaries of the Chukchi
Sea lease sale area. Even though they are naturally widely distributed
throughout their range, a relatively large proportion of bears from the
CS population utilize the western Chukchi sea region of Russia.
Concurrently, polar bears from the SBS population predominantly utilize
the central Beaufort Sea region of the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic.
These areas are well outside of the geographic region of these
regulations.
2. Within the specified geographical region, the number of walruses
and polar bears utilizing open water habitats, where the primary
activity (seismic surveys) during offshore exploration operations will
occur, is expected to be small relative to the number of animals
utilizing pack ice habitats or coastal areas. Both walruses and polar
bears are poorly adapted to life in the open ocean. Unlike other
pinnepeds, walruses must periodically ``haul-out'' onto ice or land to
rest. The previous aerial survey efforts in the offshore region of the
eastern Chukchi Sea found that most (80-96 percent) walruses were
closely associated with sea ice and that the number of walruses
observed in open water decreased significantly with distance from the
pack ice. Previous survey efforts in the region in 1975, 1980, 1985,
and 1990 concluded that most walruses will remain closely associated
with floating pack ice during the open water season. We expect this
behavior to continue. Under minimal or no-ice conditions, we expect
most walruses will either migrate out of the region in pursuit of more
favorable ice habitats, or relocate to coastal haul-outs (primarily in
Russia) where their foraging trips will be restricted to near-shore
habitats.
Polar bears are capable of swimming long distances across open
water. However, based on scientific data, polar bears are expected to
remain closely associated with either sea ice or coastal zones during
the open water season where food availability is high. We expect the
number of walruses and polar bears using pelagic waters during proposed
open-water exploration activities to be very small relative to the
number of animals exploiting more favorable habitats in the region
(i.e., pack ice habitats and/or coastal haul-outs and near-shore
environments).
3. Within the specified geographical region, the footprint of
authorized projects is expected to be small relative to the range of
polar bear and walrus in the region. The Chukchi Sea lease sale area
represents 1.9 million square kilometers of potential walrus and polar
bear habitat, comprising approximately 20 percent of the total area
where walrus and polar bears would be expected to be found in the
Chukchi Sea region. The typical marine seismic survey project is
expected to sample less than 3 percent of this area and, because of
difficulties associated with operating in and near pack ice, survey
vessels will be operating in habitats where walrus and polar bear
densities are expected to be low. Although it is impossible to predict
with certainty the number of walruses or polar bears that might be
present in the offshore environment of the lease sale area in a given
year, or in a specific project area during the open water season, based
on habitat characteristics where most exploration activities will occur
(open-water environments) and the small sphere of influence that an
authorized project would have on the lease sale area; based on
scientific knowledge and observation of the species, only small numbers
of walruses and polar bears will come in contact with Industry
operations, and of those, only a small percentage will exhibit behavior
constituting take.
As detailed in the section, ``Description of Geographic Region,''
terrestrial habitat encompasses approximately 10,000 square kilometers
of the NPR-A. A smaller portion of this habitat situated along the
coast could be potential polar bear denning habitat. However, most
coastal denning for the Chukchi Sea bears occurs in Russia, outside of
the geographic region. Where terrestrial activities may occur in
coastal areas of Alaska in polar bear denning habitat, specific
mitigation measures will be required to minimize Industry impacts.
4. Monitoring reports required of the industry in 2006 in the
region where the majority of the proposed activities would occur
provides insight on the level and significance of potential take. Of
the small number of walruses sighted in 2006, approximately one-fourth
(318 of the 1,186 walrus documented by observers onboard a seismic
vessel) of the animals observed exhibited some form of behavioral
response to the same type of seismic activity covered by this rule and
as such qualified as level B harassment take. The behavioral responses
recorded were short-term nonlethal responses and the effects were
limited to short-term, minor behavioral changes, primarily dispersal or
diving. None of the take that occurred would have affected
reproduction, survival, or other critical life functions.
In 2006, sightings of 17 polar bears were reported by vessel
monitoring programs for seismic activities that occurred in the region
where the majority of the proposed activities will occur. Of these,
only 6 of the polar bears exhibited some form of behavioral response
and all effects were limited to short-term, minor behavioral changes,
primarily moving away from the distraction. Therefore, none of the take
that occurred would have affected reproduction, survival, or other
critical life functions.
Although the actual number of animals exhibiting some form of
behavioral response will vary from year to year related to the exact
amount of industrial activity, we anticipate that response will be
comparable to the take that occurred in 2006 in terms of the number of
animals appearing to be disturbed by the activity as a proportion of
the number of animals sighted. We also anticipate that the type of take
will be similar to that observed in 2006, i.e., nonlethal, minor,
short-term behavioral changes.
5. Monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation measures are
expected to significantly limit the number of incidental takes of
animals. Holders of an LOA will be required to adopt monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce potential
impacts of their operations on walruses and polar bears. Restrictions
on the season of operation (July-November) for marine activities are
intended to limit operations to ice free conditions when walrus and
polar bear densities are expected to be low in the proposed area of
Industry operation. Monitoring programs are required to inform
operators of the presence of marine mammals and sea ice incursions.
Adaptive management responses based on real-time monitoring information
(described in these regulations) will be used to avoid or minimize
interactions with walruses and polar bears. For Industry activities in
terrestrial environments where denning polar bears may be a factor,
mitigation measures will require that den detection surveys be
conducted and Industry will maintain at least a one-mile distance from
any known polar bear den. A full description of the mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements associated with an LOA which
will be requirements for Industry can be found in Section 18.118.
To summarize, only a small number of the Pacific walrus population
and the Chukchi Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea
[[Page 33235]]
polar bear population will be impacted by the proposed Industry
activity. This statement can be made with a high level of confidence
because:
(1) Based upon the reported distribution of 100,000 walrus on haul-
outs on the Chukotka coast and between 2,000 to 5,000 walrus in aerial
surveys in 2007 on haul-outs on the Alaska coast, as well as the
estimated 5,000 walrus in Bristol Bay; the number of walrus expected in
the area of operation during the open water season when no ice is
present is at least an order of magnitude less than the number of
walrus utilizing pack ice and land habitats outside the proposed area
of operations. Additionally, although polar bears are capable of
swimming long distances across open water, based on scientific evidence
polar bears are expected to remain closely associated with either sea
ice or coastal zones where food availability is high and not in open
water where the proposed activity will occur;
(2) the specific geographic region where the proposed activity will
occur is approximately 20 percent of the total area where walrus and
polar bears would be expected to be found, and the actual marine
footprint of the Industry operations comprises less than 3 percent of
this area, all of which is expected to be open water during seismic
operations;
(3) based upon 2006 onboard observations, 1,186 walrus were
observed by support vessels on ice scouting missions and of those,
approximately 318 exhibited mild forms of behavioral response. Only 17
polar bears were observed and only 6 exhibited mild forms of behavioral
response. In both instances, less than half of the animals encountered
exhibited any behavioral response and those that responded did so in a
mild fashion. Consequently, with the anticipation of approximately five
vessels operating annually, the aggregate number of takes will remain
small in comparison to the species population in the Chukchi Sea.
(4) importantly, the behavioral response observed was a very
passive form of take. For walrus the response was primarily dispersal
or diving and for polar bears primarily moving away from the
disturbance. Such response would not have affected reproduction,
survival, or other critical life functions. This same level of
behavioral response is expected if encounters occur during future
operations;
(5) the restrictive monitoring and mitigation measures that will be
placed on Industry activity will further reduce the minimal impacts
expected; and
(6) although sea ice decline as the result of climate change is
likely to result in significant impacts to polar bears and walruses in
the future, it will also likely reduce the number of polar bears and
walruses occurring in the proposed area during Industry activity,
further reducing the potential for interaction.
In conclusion, given the spatial distribution, habitat
requirements, and observed and reported data, the number of animals
coming in contact with the industry activity will be small by an order
of magnitude to the Chukchi Sea walrus and the Chukchi and South
Beaufort Sea polar bear populations. Therefore, even in the face of
increased industry activity, the number of walrus and polar bear taken
by this activity will be small and the effect on their respective
populations negligible.
Negligible Effects Determination
Based upon our review of the nature, scope, and timing of the
proposed oil and gas exploration activities and mitigation measures,
and in consideration of the best available scientific information, it
is our determination that the proposed activities will have a
negligible impact on Pacific walrus and on polar bears. Factors
considered in our negligible effects determination include:
1. The behavior and distribution of walruses and polar bears at low
densities utilizing areas that overlap with Industry is expected to
limit the amount of interactions between walruses, polar bears, and
Industry. The distribution and habitat use patterns of walruses and
polar bears in conjunction with the likely area of Industrial activity
results in a small portion of the population in the area of operations
and, therefore, likely to be affected. As discussed in the section
``Biological Information'' (see Pacific Walruses section), walruses are
expected to be closely associated with ice and land haulouts during the
operating season. Only small numbers of walruses are likely to be found
in open water habitats where offshore exploration activities will
occur. In 2007, up to 100,000 walruses were observed on haul-outs on
the Chukotka coastline (where the vast majority of animals were females
and calves) and approximately 2,000 to 5,000 walruses were observed at
haul-outs on the Alaska Chukchi Sea coast, as well as the annual counts
of approximately 5,000 walruses in Bristol Bay. These areas are outside
of the Chukchi Sea Lease Sale area. In addition, the primary industrial
activities that may affect walruses will occur outside the walrus
breeding season. Animals in the area of operations will either be
traveling through the area or feeding.
In the open water season, polar bears are closely associated with
pack-ice and are unlikely to interact with open-water industrial
activities for the same reasons discussed in the Small Numbers
Determination. Likewise, polar bears from the CS and SBS populations
are widely distributed at extremely low densities and range outside of
the geographic region of these regulations.
2. The predicted effects of proposed activities on walruses and
polar bears will be nonlethal, temporary passive takes of animals. The
documented impacts of previous Industry activities on walruses and
polar bears, taking into consideration cumulative effects, provides
direct information that the types of activities analyzed for this rule
will have minimal effects and will be short-term, temporary behavioral
changes. The Service predicts the effects of industry activities on
walruses and polar bears will have a low frequency of occurrence, the
effects will be sporadic and of short duration. Additionally, effects
will involve very passive forms of take. This passive displacement will
be limited to small numbers of walruses and polar bears. Displacement
will not result in more than negligible effects because habitats of
similar values are not limited to the area of activity and are
abundantly available within the region.
A description of Industry impacts in 2006, in the Chukchi Sea,
where the majority of the proposed activities will occur, showcase the
number and type of impacts that will likely occur during the regulatory
period. In 2006, vessel based monitors reported 1,186 walrus sightings
during Industry seismic activity. Three hundred eighteen of the
walruses sighted exhibited some form of behavioral response to the
vessels, primarily dispersal or diving. Again, other than a short-term
change in behavior, no negative effects were noted and the numbers of
animals demonstrating a change in behavior was small in comparison to
those observed in the area.
During the same time, polar bears documented during Industry
seismic surveys in the Chukchi Sea were observed walking on ice and
swimming. Bears reacted to a vessel by distancing themselves from the
vessel. In addition, polar bear reactions recorded during a research
marine geophysical survey in 2006 documented that bears exhibited minor
reactions to helicopter or vessel traffic, suggesting that disturbances
from seismic operations can be short-term and limited to minor changes
in
[[Page 33236]]
behavior. Likewise, in the terrestrial environment, bears observed near
a pad at the Intrepid project in 2007, expressed minimal behavioral
changes where they altered direction while being observed by a bear
monitor.
3. The footprint of authorized projects is expected to be small
relative to the range of polar bear and walrus populations. A limited
area of activity will reduce the potential to exposure of animals to
Industry activities and limit potential interactions of those animals
using the area, such as walruses feeding in the area or polar bears or
walruses moving through the area.
4. Mitigation measures will limit potential effects of industry
activities. As described in the Small Numbers Determination, holders of
an LOA will be required to adopt monitoring requirements and mitigation
measures designed to reduce potential impacts of their operations on
walruses and polar bears. Seasonal restrictions, monitoring programs
required to inform operators of the presence of marine mammals and sea
ice incursions, den detection surveys for polar bears, and adaptive
management responses based on real-time monitoring information
(described in these regulations) will be used to avoid or minimize
interactions with walruses and polar bears; limiting Industry effects
on these animals.
5. The potential impacts of climate change, such as a decline in
sea ice, for the duration of the regulations (2008-2012) has the
potential to result in a redistribution of walruses and polar bears
away from the geographic region and during the season of Industry
activity. Decline in sea ice is likely to result in significant impacts
to polar bear and walrus populations in the future. Recent trends in
the Chukchi Sea have resulted in seasonal sea-ice retreat off the
continental shelf and over deep Arctic Ocean waters, presenting
significant adaptive challenges to walruses in the region. Reasonably
foreseeable impacts to walruses as a result of diminishing sea ice
cover include: shifts in range and abundance; increased reliance on
coastal haul-outs; and increased mortality associated with predation
and disturbances events at coastal haul-outs. Although declining sea
ice and its causes are pressing conservation issues for ice dependent
species, such as polar bears and walruses, activities proposed by
Industry and addressed in this five-year rule will not adversely impact
the survival of these species as the likely response to near-term
climate-driven change (retreat of sea ice) will result in the species
utilizing areas (such as coastal haul-outs by walrus and the edge of
the ice shelf by polar bears) that are outside the proposed areas of
Industrial activity and during the season (open-water) when the
majority of activities will be conducted. As a result of continued ice
retreat due to climate change, we expect fewer animals in the area of
proposed Industry activities during the open water season.
We therefore conclude that any incidental take reasonably likely to
or reasonably expected to occur as a result of carrying out any of the
activities authorized under these regulations will have no more than a
negligible effect on Pacific walruses and polar bears utilizing the
Chukchi Sea region, and we do not expect any resulting disturbances to
negatively impact the rates of recruitment or survival for the Pacific
walrus and polar bear populations. These regulations do not authorize
lethal take, and we do not anticipate any lethal take will occur.
Findings
We make the following findings regarding this
Small Numbers
The Service finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to
result from the effects of the proposed activities, as mitigated
through this regulatory process, will be limited to small numbers of
walruses and polar bears. In making this finding the Service developed
a ``small numbers'' analysis based on: (a) The seasonal distributions
and habitat use patterns of walruses and polar bears in the Chukchi
Sea; (b) the timing, scale, and habitats associated with the proposed
activities and the limited potential area of impact in open water
habitats, and (c) monitoring requirements and mitigation measures
designed to limit interactions with, and impacts to, polar bears and
walruses. We concluded that only a small proportion of the Pacific
walrus population or the Chukchi Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea polar
bear populations will likely be impacted by any individual project
because: (1) The proportion of walruses and polar bears in the United
States portion of the Chukchi Sea region during the open water season
when ice is not present is small compared to numbers of walruses and
polar bears found outside the region; (2) within the specified
geographical region, only small numbers of walruses or polar bears will
occur in the open-water habitat where marine Industry activities will
occur; (3) within the specified geographical region, the footprint of
marine operations is a small percentage of the open water habitat in
the region; (4) based on monitoring information, only a portion of the
animals in the vicinity of the industrial activities are likely to be
affected and the behavioral responses are expected to be nonlethal,
minor, short-term behavioral changes; and (5) the required monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures described below will further
reduce impacts. Therefore, the number of animals likely to be affected
is small, because: (1) A small portion of the Pacific walrus population
or the Chukchi Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear populations
will be present in the area of Industry activities, (2) of that
portion, a small percentage will come in contact with Industry
activities, and (3) the response by those animals will likely be
minimal changes in behavior.
Negligible Effects
The Service finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to
result from the effects of oil and gas related exploration activities
during the period of the rule, in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent western
coast of Alaska will have no more than a negligible effect on the rates
of recruitment and survival of polar bears and Pacific walruses in the
Chukchi Sea Region. In making this finding, we considered the best
scientific information available on: (1) The biological and behavioral
characteristics of the species, which is expected to limit the amount
of interactions between walruses, polar bears, and Industry; (2) the
nature of proposed oil and gas industry activities; (3) the potential
effects of Industry activities on the species; (4) the documented
impacts of Industry activities on the species, where nonlethal,
temporary, passive takes of animals occur, taking into consideration
cumulative effects; (5) potential impacts of declining sea ice due to
climate change, where both walruses and polar bears can potentially be
redistributed to locations outside the areas of Industry activity due
to their fidelity to sea ice; (6) mitigation measures that will
minimize Industry impacts through adaptive management; and (7) other
data provided by monitoring programs in the Beaufort Sea (1993-2006)
and historically in the Chukchi Sea (1991-1996).
Our finding of ``negligible impact'' applies to non-lethal
incidental take associated with proposed oil and gas exploration
activities as mitigated through the regulatory process. The regulations
establish monitoring and reporting requirements to evaluate the
potential impacts of authorized activities, as well as mitigation
measures designed to minimize
[[Page 33237]]
interactions with and impacts to walruses and polar bears. We will
evaluate each request for an LOA based on the specific activity and the
specific geographic location where the proposed activities will occur
to ensure that the level of activity and potential take is consistent
with our finding of negligible impact. Depending on the results of the
evaluation, we may grant the authorization, add further operating
restrictions, or deny the authorization. For example, restrictions in
potential denning areas will be applied on a case-by-case basis after
assessing each LOA request and could require pre-activity surveys
(e.g., aerial surveys, FLIR surveys, and/or polar bear scent-trained
dogs) to determine the presence or absence of denning activity and, in
known denning areas, may require enhanced monitoring or flight
restrictions, such as minimum flight elevations. Monitoring
requirements and operating restrictions associated with offshore
drilling operations will include requirements for ice-scouting, surveys
for walruses and polar bears in the vicinity of active drilling
operations, requirements for marine mammal observers onboard drill
ships and ice breakers, and operational restrictions near polar bear
and walrus aggregations.
Impact on Subsistence Take
Based on the best scientific information available and the results
of harvest data, including affected villages, the number of animals
harvested, the season of the harvests, and the location of hunting
areas, we find that the effects of the proposed exploration activities
in the Chukchi Sea region would not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of walruses and polar bears for taking for
subsistence uses during the period of the rule. In making this finding,
we considered the following: (1) Historical data regarding the timing
and location of harvests; (2) effectiveness of mitigation measures
stipulated by Service regulations for obtaining an LOA at 50 CFR
18.118, which includes requirements for community consultations and
POCs, as appropriate, between the applicants and affected Native
communities; (3) MMS-issued operational permits; and (4) anticipated 5-
year effects of Industry proposed activities on subsistence hunting.
Applicants must use methods and conduct activities identified in
their LOAs in a manner that minimizes to the greatest extent
practicable adverse impacts on Pacific walruses and polar bears, their
habitat, and on the availability of these marine mammals for
subsistence uses. Prior to receipt of an LOA, applicants will be
required to consult with the Eskimo Walrus Commission, the Alaska
Nanuuq Commission, and the communities of Point Hope, Point Lay,
Wainwright, and Barrow through a POC to discuss potential conflicts
with subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting caused by the location,
timing, and methods of proposed operations. Documentation of all
consultations must be included in LOA applications. Documentation must
include meeting minutes, a summary of any concerns identified by
community members, and the applicant's responses to identified
concerns. If community concerns suggest that the proposed activities
could have an adverse impact on the subsistence uses of these species,
conflict avoidance issues must be addressed through a POC.
Where prescribed, holders of LOAs will be required to have a POC on
file with the Service and on-site. The POC must address how applicants
will work with potentially affected Native communities and what actions
will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting
opportunities for walruses and polar bears. The POC must include:
1. A description of the procedures by which the holder of the LOA
will work and consult with potentially affected subsistence hunters.
2. A description of specific measures that have been or will be
taken to avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of
walruses and polar bears, and to ensure continued availability of the
species for subsistence use.
The Service will review the POC to ensure any potential adverse
effects on the availability of the animals are minimized. The Service
will reject POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to ensure
that marine mammals will remain available for subsistence use.
If there is evidence during the 5-year period of the regulations
that oil and gas activities are affecting the availability of walruses
or polar bears for take for subsistence uses, we will reevaluate our
findings regarding permissible limits of take and the measures required
to ensure continued subsistence hunting opportunities.
Monitoring and Reporting
The purpose of monitoring requirements is to assess the effects of
industrial activities on walruses and polar bears to ensure that take
is consistent with that anticipated in the negligible-impact and
subsistence use analyses, and to detect any unanticipated effects on
the species. Holders of LOAs will be required to have an approved,
site-specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan on file with
the Service and on site. Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plans
must be designed to enumerate the number of walruses and polar bears
encountered during authorized activities, estimate the number of
incidental takes that occurred during authorized activities, and
evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed mitigation measures.
Monitoring activities are summarized and reported in a formal
report each year. The applicant must submit an annual monitoring and
reporting plan at least 90 days prior to the initiation of a proposed
activity, and the applicant must submit a final monitoring report to us
no later than 90 days after the completion of the activity. We base
each year's monitoring objective on the previous year's monitoring
results.
We require an approved plan for monitoring and reporting the
effects of oil and gas industry exploration activities on walruses and
polar bears prior to issuance of an LOA. We require approval of the
monitoring results for continued authorization under the LOA.
Discussion of Comments on the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register (72
FR 30670) on June 1, 2007, included a request for public comments. The
closing date for the comment period was June 30, 2007. We received
4,360 comments.
We received numerous comments regarding the Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) process. Those comments are beyond the scope of
this rule and consequently are not addressed in this rule. However, we
reviewed and considered the comments submitted as a part of the IHA
process. Prior to issuance of any IHAs, we concluded that no additional
changes were necessary in our finding that the impacts of seismic
exploration conducted during the 2007 Chukchi Sea open-water were
negligible and would not have unmitigable adverse impacts on the
availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.
With respect to this rule, the following issues were raised:
1. MMPA and NEPA
Comment: The Service should conduct a more thorough analysis that
explicitly considers the: (1) Direct effects on walrus and polar bear
populations; (2) potential or likely effects of other oil and gas
activities, climate change, and other human-
[[Page 33238]]
induced factors; and (3) cumulative effects of all of these activities
over time.
Response: The Service has analyzed oil and gas exploratory
activities taking into account risk factors to polar bears and walruses
such as potential habitat loss, harassment, lethal take, oil spills,
contaminants, and effects on prey species that are directly related to
Industry within the geographic region. The Service analysis of oil and
gas activities for this rulemaking encapsulates all of the known oil
and gas industry's activities that will occur in the geographic region
during the 5-year regulation period. If additional activities are
proposed that were not included in the Industry petition or otherwise
known at this time, the Service will evaluate the potential impacts
associated with those projects to determine whether a given project
lies within the scope of the analysis for these regulations.
The Service agrees that climate change is a likely factor in the
decline of sea ice, which is a threat to the polar bear. Sea ice
decline also has the potential to impact walrus populations. We
addressed this issue for polar bears in the decision to list the polar
bear as threatened under the ESA (73 FR 28212; May 15, 2008). We
expanded our analysis in the final rule to include more detail on the
decline of sea ice associated with climate change and other factors. We
have concluded that the activities proposed by Industry and addressed
in this rule will have limited impact on the survival of the species.
Recent trends in the Chukchi Sea have resulted in seasonal sea-ice
retreat off the continental shelf and over deep Arctic Ocean waters,
presenting significant adaptive challenges to walruses in the region.
Reasonably foreseeable impacts to walruses as a result of diminishing
sea ice cover include: Shifts in range and abundance; increased
reliance on coastal haulouts; and increased mortality associated with
predation and disturbances at coastal haulouts. Secondary effects on
animal health and condition resulting from reductions in suitable
foraging habitat may also influence survivorship and productivity.
Future studies investigating walrus distributions, population status
and trends, and habitat use patterns in the Chukchi Sea are important
for responding to walrus conservation and management issues associated
with environmental and habitat changes.
The Service is currently involved in the collection of baseline
data to help us understand how the changing Arctic environment will be
manifested in polar bear and walrus stocks in Alaska. As we gain a
better understanding of climate change and effects on these resources,
we will incorporate the information in future actions. Ongoing studies
include those led by the USGS Alaska Science Center, in cooperation
with the Service, to examine polar bear habitat use, reproduction, and
survival relative to a changing sea-ice environment. Specific
objectives of the project include: Polar bear habitat availability and
quality influenced by ongoing climate changes and the response by polar
bears; the effects of polar bear responses to climate-induced changes
to the sea-ice environment on body condition of adults, numbers and
sizes of offspring, survival of offspring to weaning (recruitment); and
population age structure. The Service and USGS are also conducting
multi-year studies of the walrus population to estimate population size
and investigate habitat use patterns.
Our analysis does consider cumulative effects of oil and gas
activities described in Industry's petition. These occur in the area
over the 5-year time period covered by these regulations. Cumulative
impacts of oil and gas activities have been assessed, in part, through
the information we have gained in prior Industry monitoring reports
from the Beaufort Sea, which are required for each operator under the
authorizations. Information from these reports provides a history of
past Industry effects and trends on walruses and polar bears from
interactions with oil and gas activities. In addition, information used
in our cumulative effects assessment includes research publications and
data, traditional knowledge of polar bear and walrus habitat use in the
area, anecdotal observations, and professional judgment.
Monitoring results indicate little short-term impact on polar bears
or Pacific walruses, given these types of activities. We evaluated the
sum total of both subtle and acute impacts likely to occur from
industrial activity and, using this information, we determined that all
direct and indirect effects, including cumulative effects, of
industrial activities during the 5-year regulatory period would not
adversely affect the species through effects on rates of recruitment or
survival. Based on past information, the level of interaction between
Industry and polar bears and Pacific walruses has been minimal.
Additional information, such as subsistence harvest levels and
incidental observations of polar bears near shore, provide evidence
that these populations have not been adversely affected by oil and gas
activities.
Comment: The environmental assessment (EA) provides little analysis
of secondary or cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable actions on walrus and polar bear populations. Consequently,
there is no basis for concluding a negligible impact for walrus and
polar bear, nor a conclusion that there will be no unmitigatable
adverse impact on subsistence use.
Response: Cumulative impacts have been analyzed in the context of
making a finding that the total takings during the 5-year period of the
rule will have a negligible impact on Pacific walruses and polar bears
and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
walruses and polar bears for subsistence uses. The Service further
concluded that any potential impacts to polar bears and walrus as a
result of the proposed Industry activities will be minimized with
regulations in place because the Service will have increased ability to
work directly with the Industry operators through implementation of
monitoring and mitigation measures. It is important to note that the
incidental take regulations are not valid for an indefinite length of
time. They expire in 5 years. Consequently, our analyses are limited to
anticipated impacts of all known activities that will occur in the
geographic region during the 5-year regulation period. It should also
be noted that the Service can withdraw or suspend the regulations at
any time during the 5-year period if the Service concludes that new
information or events create more than a negligible impact on polar
bear or walrus populations or an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence use. We have revised the EA to further clarify these
points.
Comment: The Service violates NEPA by failing to prepare a full EIS
for the proposed regulations and take authorizations. Under NEPA, an
EIS must be prepared if ``substantial questions are raised as to
whether a project may cause significant degradation of some human
environmental factor.''
Response: Section 1501.4(b) of NEPA, found at 40 CFR Chapter V,
notes that, in determining whether to prepare an EIS, a Federal agency
may prepare an EA and, based on the EA document, make a determination
whether to prepare an EIS. The Department of the Interior's policy and
procedures for compliance with NEPA (69 FR 10866) further affirm that
the purpose of an EA is to allow the responsible official to
[[Page 33239]]
determine whether to prepare an EIS or a ``Finding of No Significant
Impact'' (FONSI). The Service analyzed the proposed activity, i.e.,
issuance of implementing regulations, in accordance with the criteria
of NEPA and made an initial determination that it does not constitute a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. Potential impacts of these regulations on the species and
the environment were analyzed in the EA rather than the potential
impacts of the oil and gas activities. There appeared to be some
confusion between the potential impacts of these regulations and the
potential impacts of the activities themselves. It should be noted that
the Service does not authorize the actual Industry activities. Those
activities are authorized by other State and Federal agencies, and
could likely occur even without incidental take authority. These
regulations provide the Service with a means of interacting with
Industry to insure that the impacts to polar bears and Pacific walruses
are minimized. Furthermore, the analysis in the EA found that the
proposed activity would have a negligible impact on polar bears and
Pacific walruses and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence users, thereby resulting in a FONSI. Therefore, in
accordance with NEPA, an EIS is not required.
Comment: The EA is a deficient NEPA document because: (1) The
Service needs to conduct more thorough analysis of various
alternatives, not just the issuance of the 5-year take regulations and
the no-action alternative; (2) the Service has failed to identify
unique habitats, including national wildlife refuge lands, sensitive
onshore areas, and private lands; (3) the EA is not formatted
correctly; and (4) the EA fails to address the likely and potential
impacts of oil spills on polar bears and walrus.
Response: Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA requires a Federal agency to
``study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended
courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts
concerning alternative uses of available resources.'' In addition to
the action and no action alternatives, the Service considered other
possible alternatives, but determined these were neither appropriate
nor feasible. These included (1) Separating Industry operations by the
type of activity; (2) separating Industry operations by the location of
activities; (3) separating Industry operations by the timing of the
activity; (4) promulgating separate rules for each type of activity;
and (5) initiating an IHA program similar to the NMFS program.
In determining the impact of incidental taking, the Service must
evaluate the ``total taking'' expected from the specified activity in a
specific geographic area. The estimate of total taking involved the
accumulation of impacts from all anticipated activities to be covered
by the specific regulations. Our analysis indicated that separating
Industry operations by various means was not a viable alternative, as
we cannot separate or exempt specific activities in order to make a
negligible finding. In addition, during the 2006 and 2007 open-water
seasons, the Service authorized IHAs for oil and gas development
activities in the Chukchi Sea as a means to establish temporary
incidental take authorization for a limited number of projects
occurring in the area. This was a new process for the Service and,
subsequently, the Service concluded that the IHA process did not
provide the comprehensive coverage necessary due to the types and
numbers of onshore and offshore oil and gas activities that may
encounter walruses and polar bears during the next 5 years. Therefore,
further analysis of these alternatives was not appropriate.
To reduce paperwork, NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1500.4(j) encourage
agencies to incorporate by reference. In describing the physical
environment of the geographic area, the Service EA refers the reader to
the Programmatic EA prepared by the MMS. The Service EA describes the
specific biological environment of the walrus and the polar bear within
the identified geographic area. To the best extent possible we have
described sensitive onshore areas for walruses and polar bears in the
geographic region within the EA and the regulations.
The Service acknowledges that the geographic region contains a
multitude of lands that are managed under various owners; however, the
use of unique lands will be dictated by those regulatory agencies with
authority to permit the Industry activities. Once an Industry project
has been permitted by the responsible agency, the Service will evaluate
the project in regard to polar bears and walruses through a requested
incidental take authorization, i.e., the LOA process provided by these
regulations.
Although NEPA outlines a format for writing an EIS, no formal
format is required for EAs. NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1508.9 state
that an EA shall include a brief discussion of the need for the
proposal, alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E), the
environment impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives, and a
listing of agencies and persons consulted. The Service EA prepared for
the promulgation of these incidental take regulations provides a
discussion for each of these items. The DOI policy and procedures for
compliance with NEPA (69 FR 10866) further states that an EA may be
``prepared in any format useful to facilitate planning, decision-
making, and appropriate public participation.'' The EA, as prepared by
the Service, serves these purposes and complies with all NEPA
requirements.
The potential of oil spills, both large and small, is discussed
under section 3.4 of the EA for both Pacific walruses and polar bears
in their subsections under this section. The EA further contains a
discussion of potential impacts to prey species of both walruses and
polar bears. The information presented in these sections of the EA was
considered in the Service findings for these regulations.
Comment: Certain geophysical survey operations, such as
aeromagnetic surveys, were not analyzed in the proposed rule or the EA.
Response: All activities described within Industry's petitions were
analyzed for these regulations. Those activities thought to have the
potential to impact walruses or polar bears will be prescribed
additional mitigation measures.
Comment: Environmental consequences of the activities of the
various foreign-flagged vessels scheduled to participate in the
proposed activities were ignored. The Service cannot authorize take in
the Alaskan Chukchi Sea while ignoring related take that will occur
elsewhere in the high seas.
Response: This suggestion goes beyond the scope of this rule and
beyond the petitioner's request. The regulations identify the
geographic area covered by this request as the continental shelf of the
Arctic Ocean adjacent to western Alaska, including the waters (State of
Alaska and OCS waters) and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, as well as the
terrestrial coastal land 25 miles inland between the western boundary
of the south National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A) near Icy Cape
and the north-south line from Point Barrow (72 FR 30672). This
identified geographical region is the subject area for these
regulations, and we concluded that these boundaries are appropriate for
analyzing the potential effects of the described oil and gas activities
on polar bears and Pacific walruses occurring within the Chukchi Sea.
[[Page 33240]]
Comment: The areas described are too large to be defined as a
``specified geographical region,'' and it is unlawful to do so.
Response: Congress did not define ``specified geographical region''
when the MMPA was amended in 1981 to authorize the Secretary to allow
the taking of marine mammals incidental to specified activities other
than commercial fishing operations. Therefore, the Service provided a
definition in the regulations at 50 CFR 18.27, which states ``specified
geographical region means an area within which a specified activity is
conducted and which has similar biogeographic characteristics.''
Although the use of such a broad definition has come into question, it
has yet to be further defined. Instead, the agencies are given the
latitude to determine what makes up the specific geographic region for
the specific action being considered. The Service believes that the
Chukchi Sea lease sale area as provided in the preamble of the proposed
rule meets the definition of specified geographic region as currently
defined and interpreted by the Service.
Comment: The Service cannot claim the lack of available information
on the status of walrus and polar bear justifies its decisions, as
determined in Brower v. Evans, 257 F.3d 1058, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001).
Response: In Brower v. Evans, the Court found that the NMFS, when
adopting a regulation to ease the dolphin-safe labeling standard for
tuna, had erred by: (1) engaging in rulemaking before conducting
studies on dolphin that had been mandated by Congress as a prerequisite
to the decision-making process; and (2) failing to consider the best
available scientific evidence, which contradicted the agency's
conclusion that tuna caught in purse seines could be labeled as
``dolphin safe.'' 257 F.3d 1058, 1068-71 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court
also indicated that the agency could not use insufficient evidence as a
reason for ignoring a statutory mandate to determine whether or not the
use of the nets was impacting dolphin stocks. Id. at 1071.
None of these situations apply here. The applicable statutory
mandate is Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, which allows for
incidental, but not intentional, take of small numbers of marine
mammals, provided that the total take will have a negligible impact on
the population, and will not affect the availability of the species for
subsistence uses. The Service put significant effort into insuring that
it was using the best available scientific evidence before making
affirmative determinations that the incidental take under this rule
will have a negligible impact on polar bear and walrus populations in
the Chukchi Sea and that it will not affect subsistence uses. In
addition, the mitigation measures required under the rule further
reduce the potential for negative impacts on population or subsistence.
Although the Service is actively engaged in ongoing studies on climate
change, polar bears, and walruses in the Arctic, none of these studies
have been mandated by Congress as a prerequisite to this rulemaking.
Comment: The Service cannot lawfully authorize some take (i.e.,
harassment) if other unauthorized take (i.e., serious injury or
mortality) may also occur, as determined in Kokechik Fishermen's
Association v. Secretary of Commerce, 839 F.2d 795, 801-02 (D.C. Cir.
1988).
Response: We are not anticipating that any unauthorized takes, such
as serious injury or mortality, will result from the implementation of
this rule.
Comment: The regulations would allow for unlimited harassment of
polar bears and Pacific walruses by oil companies in the Chukchi Sea.
Response: We disagree. Authorized activities are limited by the
operating restrictions set forth in this rule. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of
the MMPA provides for the incidental, but not intentional take of small
numbers of marine mammals, provided that the total take will have a
negligible impact on the population, and will not affect the
availability of the species for subsistence users. The Service believes
that potential adverse effects to walruses, polar bears, and the
subsistence use of these resources can be greatly reduced through the
operating restrictions, monitoring programs, and adaptive management
responses set forth in this rule.
Comment: We should be permanently protecting the Chukchi Sea, not
opening it up to oil leasing.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the analysis for the
5-year incidental take regulations. The MMPA allows for the Secretary
to authorize the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course
of a specified activity conducted in a specified geographical region
upon making certain findings; however, authorization to conduct the
activity, in this case oil and gas exploration, falls under the agency
responsible for permitting that activity, in this case, the MMS.
Comment: Proposed regulations give a blank check to the oil and gas
Industry to operate in these species' most sensitive habitats.
Response: We disagree. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA provides a
mechanism for the Secretary to authorize the incidental, but not
intentional taking of marine mammals by citizens of the United States
while engaged in a specified activity within a specified geographical
region, provided that the Secretary finds the total expected incidental
taking will have a negligible impact on the species and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species for
subsistence purposes. Such findings have been made based on the best
available information.
The Secretary then prescribes regulations that set forth
permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the species, its habitat, and its
availability for subsistence purposes. Further, the Secretary sets
forth monitoring and reporting requirements, which allow the Service to
measure and assess impacts and their potential effect on the species or
subsistence use. The reported monitoring information allows the Service
to adjust future actions to better manage Industry activities and
further limit potential impacts on Service trust species. These
regulations emulate the intent of the MMPA by providing a process
whereby stipulations will be imposed on Industry through issuance of
the LOAs to ensure that potential impacts to polar bear and walrus
remain negligible and mitigable. For example, should polar bears be
encountered during Industry activities, the LOA outlines the
appropriate measures that must be followed to safeguard the lives of
both humans and bears and, thereby, minimize adverse impacts.
In addition, Section 101(5)(B) authorizes the Secretary to withdraw
or suspend an authorization if the method of taking, monitoring, or
reporting is not being complied with, or if the take allowed under the
regulations is having, or may have, more than a negligible impact on
the species or stock of concern. Again, the monitoring and reporting
requirements provide the instrument for the Secretary to make such a
determination.
2. Specificity of Action
Comment: The Service does not adequately specify the locations,
activities, and mitigation measures to be covered by the take
authorization. Deferring specific project descriptions until a later
date is inappropriate and a violation of the MMPA and NEPA. Such
speculation makes it impossible to do a NEPA analysis.
[[Page 33241]]
Response: We disagree. The intent of these regulations is to
provide petitioners an overall ``umbrella'' set of guidelines which,
when followed, allow certain oil and gas exploration activities to
proceed after the Service has assessed whether such activities will
potentially have an unmitigable impact on subsistence use or more than
a negligible impact on polar bears and walruses. To that end, the
Service described the geographic region where the proposed activities
would occur, the four types of activities to be authorized, the
projected scale of each activity, and the anticipated impacts that
could occur in the specified time period of 2007 through 2012. The
regulations acknowledge that in the planning phases, most projects
contain some element of uncertainty. Consequently, in addition to
requiring certain mitigation measures common to all projects, a
separate LOA will be required for each specific survey, seismic, or
drilling activity. This allows each specific LOA request to be
evaluated for additional mitigation methods over and above those
required in the umbrella guidelines. The regulations specify those
mitigation measures that will be required for all oil and gas
activities and those that may be required, depending on the type or
location of the activity; for these, the regulations describe under
what conditions that type of mitigation measure will be required.
This type of authorization process, i.e., provision of a general
regulatory framework for certain activities with a secondary process
authorizing specific individual projects under the framework, is not
uncommon in NEPA analyses. Examples include: the COE Nationwide Permit
Program, which authorizes over 40 different types of general projects
across the nation; various COE general permits for various activities
in all States; and programmatic EAs and EISs completed by various
agencies for authorizing certain types of work on Federal lands, and
other examples. If the framework provides enough information so that
generalized project descriptions, locations, alternatives, and methods
to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential adverse impacts can be
meaningfully addressed, the analyses can proceed. Similar to what is
being proposed here, most general permits or authorizations include a
caveat that specific project plans must be submitted prior to
conducting work and, at that time, more specific stipulations may be
required.
Comment: The proposed regulations require MMOs to report the
latitude and longitude of walrus or polar bear observations. In most
instances, this information is proprietary, and a confidentiality
agreement would be needed. In addition, even with a signed
confidentiality agreement, many clients may not release this
information until after the conclusion of the lease sale.
Response: We understand this concern and have provided
clarification that the latitude and longitude of walrus or polar bear
observations from the seismic vessel must be submitted after lease
sales have occurred. Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea region occurred
in February 2008, prior to the next anticipated exploration season.
Therefore, we do not anticipate any further location-specific
proprietary issues and will expect full and complete reporting of
project locations.
Comment: The Federal Register notice and documents cited therein
are inconsistent. The activities being proposed by Industry differ from
the activities being authorized by the Service--multiple petitions and
addendums from Industry appear inconsistent.
Response: While we acknowledge that requests contained in the
petitions and addendums may not correspond exactly with the specified
activities described in the Service's Federal Register notice, the
notice as written correctly describes the scope of work that was
analyzed and would be authorized by this action. In addition,
activities conducted in the Beaufort Sea portion of the North Slope are
authorized under regulations previously analyzed and published on
August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926), for that specified geographic area.
3. Mitigation
Comment: Final rulemaking should be deferred until the Service has
specifically identified the mitigation measures that would by applied
through the LOA process so that the public is given the opportunity to
evaluate the efficacy of those measures.
Response: The Service has disclosed a suite of mitigation measures
that will be used to mitigate incidental take of polar bears and
walruses. The Service believes that the mitigation and monitoring
measures identified in the rule encompass the overall suite of measures
that will be necessary to ensure negligible impact on polar bears and
walruses and to ensure that the activities will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of these species for subsistence
uses. When a request for an LOA is made, the Service will determine
which of the mitigation and monitoring measures will be necessary for
the particular activity based on the details provided in the request.
Through the LOA process the Service will examine the siting and timing
of specific activities to determine the potential interactions with,
and impacts to, polar bears and walruses and will use this information
to prescribe the appropriate mitigation measures to ensure the least
practicable impact on polar bears and walruses and subsistence use of
these species. In addition, the Service will review monitoring results
to examine the responses of polar bears and walruses to various
exploration activities and adjust mitigation measures as necessary. We
will also consider adjusting monitoring methodologies and mitigation
measures as new technologies become available and practical.
Comment: The vessel and aircraft exclusion zones for walruses and
polar bears on ice or land are inadequate mitigation measures to
protect animals from disturbances. It was also noted that animals in
the water are not afforded the same protection and that these measures
would not afford protection to denning polar bears.
Response: The protective measures placed around walruses on land or
ice are intended to prevent mortality and level A harassment (potential
to injure) resulting from panic responses and intra-specific trauma
(e.g., trampling injuries by large groups of animals). These standards
are based upon the best available information concerning walrus and
polar bear flight responses to vessels and aircrafts and are consistent
with current guidelines in other parts of Alaska. The potential for
intra-specific trauma is greatly reduced when animals are encountered
in the water. Although these mitigation measures are also expected to
help reduce incidences of level B (potential to disturb) harassment,
they are not intended to completely eliminate the possibility of
disturbances. Required monitoring during operations is expected to
contribute data regarding flight responses, which will be used to
evaluate the efficacy of these buffer areas in future impact
assessments. Monitoring and mitigation measures to be specified through
the LOA process for activities occurring in potential polar bear
habitat include surveys for active polar dens and the establishment of
1-mile buffer areas around known or suspected dens. This is an
established conservative distance that the Service has implemented with
success in the Beaufort Sea to limit the potential for disturbance to
denning polar bears.
Comment: The Service concludes that site-specific monitoring
programs are ``expected to reduce the potential effects of exploration
activities on walruses,
[[Page 33242]]
polar bears, and the subsistence use of these resources.'' (72 FR
30675; June 1, 2007). Monitoring is not mitigation--documenting the
impacts of industrial activities on polar bears and walrus is not the
same as minimizing the effects of such activities.
Response: The commenter is correct that site-specific monitoring
alone does not necessarily mitigate potential adverse impacts. However,
real-time monitoring does provide a basis for adaptive mitigation
responses. For example, seismic vessels will be required to staff
trained marine mammal observers who have the authority to modify or
stop seismic operations under specified circumstances. Clarifying
language has been added to the final rule indicating that site-specific
monitoring programs are expected to provide the basis for initiating
adaptive mitigation measures to reduce potential effects of exploration
activities on walruses, polar bears, and subsistence use of these
resources.
Comment: The Service does not impose legally required mitigation
measures necessary to achieve the MMPA's statutory mandates.
Response: The Service has required mitigation measures that will be
imposed on Industry activities. These can be found at Section 18.118 of
this rule. These mitigation measures will be effective in addressing
the commenters concerns.
Comment: The Service's mitigation and monitoring procedures should
follow NMFS' previously authorized IHAs for marine mammals in the
Chukchi Sea.
Response: We coordinate closely with NMFS and strive to standardize
monitoring programs and mitigation measures as much as possible.
However, some of the necessary mitigation measures are species-specific
(e.g., walruses aggregate in large groups and polar bears use the
terrestrial environment) and require distinctive and, sometimes,
innovative ways to mitigate impacts specific to the needs and behaviors
of that species.
Comment: The MMPA explicitly requires that the prescribed
regulations include other ``means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact'' on a species, stock, or habitat. Regulations must
explain why measures that would reduce the impact on a species were not
chosen (i.e., why they were not ``practicable'').
Response: Although the MMPA does provide a mechanism for the
Secretary to prescribe regulations that include ``other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact'' on a species, stock,
and its habitat, the regulations do not require the Secretary to
provide an explanation for measures that were determined to be
impracticable. In fact, all measures that are practicable and would
provide a means to minimize adverse impacts to the species as a result
of the proposed activities should be included in the prescribed
regulations. The Service believes it has included a full suite of means
to minimize impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears that could
result from oil and gas exploration activities. As mentioned above, the
regulations describe which mitigation measures are always required for
certain activities and which can be selectively used to mitigate level
B harassment of polar bears and walruses. There is a certain amount of
uncertainty within each proposed activity. The Service adaptively
manages projects case-by-case because certain mitigation measures may
not be appropriate in every situation. This adaptability allows us to
implement ``means of effecting the least practicable impact.''
Comment: The Service should require that monitoring reports and
information be submitted in the format of GIS data layers and
computerized data that can easily be linked to geographic features.
Response: The Service will consider this recommendation. Currently
we are working with Industry to improve the collection and management
of monitoring information and data as it becomes available from the
operators. Depending on the type of monitoring information requested,
GIS applications are a form of data reporting that is being considered.
Comment: The Service requirement to conduct aerial surveys in the
Chukchi introduces too great a safety risk to workers. This should not
be required. There are other monitoring techniques that can be just as
effective.
Response: Holders of an LOA are required to monitor the potential
impacts of their activities on walruses and polar bears and subsistence
use of these resources. The responsibility of designing and
implementing programs to achieve these monitoring objectives lies with
the applicant seeking the exemption from the MMPA. The Service is
willing to consider any monitoring protocols and methods that meet
monitoring objectives.
Comment: Use of scent-trained dog surveys has not been adequately
tested, and caution should be used in any statement about this
technique. It is still in the `test phase' and it should be referenced
as such.
Response: Although the use of scent-trained dogs to locate polar
bear dens on the North Slope of Alaska is a recent development (2002),
it has proven to be an effective mitigation tool that allows the
Service to locate maternal dens with accuracy and limited disturbance.
The technique of using scent-trained dogs to detect ringed seals and
their lairs has been employed since the 1970s. This is an example of
adaptive mitigation, where the Service uses other technologies and
adapts them so they can be used to help limit the disturbance by
Industry on Service trust species.
Comment: All practicable monitoring measures should be included to
afford walrus and polar bear protection from sources of disturbance.
Operations should be suspended if dead or injured walrus or polar bear
are found, where any suspension should be in place until the Service
has reviewed the situation to determine where further mortalities would
occur.
Response: The Service believes that all practicable monitoring
measures have been analyzed and incorporated into the monitoring
programs. If additional techniques become available and are appropriate
to gather information that allows the Service to assess impacts of
Industry on walruses and polar bears, the Service will incorporate them
into the monitoring program.
Past operating procedures allow the Service the flexibility of
requiring a suspension of operation if animals are injured or killed as
a possible result of Industry operations. This will continue through
the duration of these regulations.
Comment: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, were all
the reporting requirements identified in the regulations at Section
18.118 of the proposed rule (72 FR 30697-30700; June 1, 2007) subjected
to OMB review and approval?
Response: Yes, the reporting requirements as outlined in Section
18.118 were included in the Service's request to OMB for approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Service's Supporting Statement, which
is part of the Information Collection Request, provides estimated
burden hours and costs for the collection of this information, i.e.,
the initial application, requests for LOAs, the Onsite Monitoring and
Observation Report, and the Final Monitoring Reports.
4. Biological Information
Comment: A broad-based population monitoring and assessment program
is needed to ensure these activities, in combination with other risk
factors, are not individually or cumulatively having any population-
level effects on polar
[[Page 33243]]
bear and walrus, or adversely affecting the availability of the animals
for subsistence purposes.
Response: The Service agrees with this comment, in part. One basic
purpose of monitoring polar bears and walruses in association with
Industry is to establish baseline information on habitat use and
encounters and to detect any unforeseen effects of Industry activities.
We agree that a broad-based, long-term monitoring program is useful to
refine our understanding of the impacts of oil and gas activities on
polar bears, walruses, and their habitat over time, and to detect and
measure changes in the status of the overall polar bear and walrus
populations in the Chukchi Sea. However, a broad-based population
monitoring plan as described by the commenter would need to incorporate
research elements as well. When making our findings, the Service uses
the best and most current information regarding polar bears and
walruses. The integration of, and improvement in, research and
monitoring programs are useful to assess potential effects to rates of
recruitment and survival and the population parameters linked to
assessing population-level impacts from oil and gas development.
Where information gaps are identified, the Service will work to
address them. Monitoring and reporting results specified through the
LOA process during authorized exploration activities are expected to
contribute information concerning walrus and polar bear distributions
and habitat use patterns within the Chukchi Sea Lease sale area. The
Service is also in the process of analyzing the results of a joint
U.S./Russia walrus population survey carried out in 2006, and is
sponsoring research investigating the distribution and habitat use
patterns of Pacific walruses in the Chukchi Sea. This information will
be incorporated into the decision-making process and into subsequent
NEPA analyses as it becomes available.
However, it should be noted that the EA analysis followed the
Council for Environmental Quality's NEPA guidance regarding assessments
where information is limited. The Service used the best information
available in making its determination that the impacts from the
specified activities will have a negligible impact on the affected
species and stocks or subsistence use of these resources. Information
from a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed scientific articles,
unpublished data, past aerial survey results, harvest monitoring
reports, as well as the results of previous oil and gas monitoring
studies were considered in the analysis. Although the present status
and trends of polar bear and walrus populations in the Chukchi Sea are
poorly known, there is no information available suggesting that
previous oil and gas exploration activities in this region resulted in
population-level effects on polar bears and walruses, or adversely
affected the availability of the animals for subsistence purposes.
Nonetheless, monitoring provisions associated with these types of
regulations were never intended as the sole means to determine whether
the activities will have a negligible effect on polar bear or walrus
populations. There is nothing in the MMPA that indicates that Industry
is wholly responsible for conducting general population research. Thus,
we have not required Industry to conduct such population research and
instead require monitoring of the observed effect of the activity on
polar bear and walrus. We are constantly accumulating information, such
as reviewing elements of existing and future research and monitoring
plans that will improve our ability to detect and measure changes in
the polar bear and walrus populations. We further acknowledge that
additional or complimentary research, studies, and information,
collected in a timely fashion, is useful to better evaluate the effects
of oil and gas activities on polar bears and walruses in the future.
Comment: There is conflicting information in different sections of
the Federal Register notice describing ``ramp-up'' procedures.
Response: The Service has made the appropriate modifications to
this document.
Comment: The Service should analyze the impacts of non-native
species introductions and require measures such as ballast water
management to prevent such introductions.
Response: Although ballast water management is a valid conservation
concern in the nation's waters, this issue is beyond the scope of our
analyses. The USCG has published regulations at 33 CFR Part 151,
Subpart D (Ballast Water Management for Control of Non-indigenous
Species in Waters of the United States), establishing a national
mandatory ballast water management program for all vessels equipped
with ballast water tanks that enter or operate within U.S. waters.
These regulations require vessels to maintain a ballast water
management plan that is specific for that vessel and assigns
responsibility to the master or appropriate official to understand and
execute the ballast water management strategy for that vessel.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Service's failure to
consider several studies demonstrating a threat of serious injury and
mortality to marine mammals from seismic surveys rendered its
determination that serious injury or mortality will not occur from the
proposed seismic surveys and other exploration activities arbitrary and
capricious.
Response: We reviewed the references cited by the commenter and
found that they provide no additional information concerning potential
impacts of seismic surveys on walruses or polar bears. Although the
underwater hearing characteristics of polar bears and walruses are
poorly known, the Service has no reason to believe that either species
are more prone to acoustical injury than other marine mammals. In the
absence of specific data on polar bears and walruses, the Service has
adopted monitoring and mitigation standards established for other
marine mammal species. These standards are inherently conservative, as
they are based upon theoretical thresholds for temporary hearing loss,
a non-injurious (Level B harassment) level. Additionally, monitoring
and reporting conditions specified in the regulations call for the
cessation of activity in the unlikely event that an injury occurs.
Activity would not be allowed to commence until the cause of the
injury/mortality could be determined. The Service believes that the
mitigation measures for seismic surveys identified in the regulations
are adequate for mitigation against the potential for serious injury
and mortality.
Comment: The Service cannot meaningfully assess the number of
walruses likely to be impacted, consequently it is not possible to
conclude that only ``small numbers'' will be taken, therefore any
``small numbers'' conclusion is arbitrary and capricious.
Response: There is no recent, reliable census information for
either walruses or polar bears in the Chukchi Sea region. Furthermore,
the distribution and abundance of walruses and polar bears in the
specified geographical region considered in these regulations is
expected to fluctuate dramatically on a seasonal and annual basis in
response to dynamic ice conditions. Consequently, it is not practical
to provide a priori numerical estimates of the number of walruses or
polar bears that might occur within the specified geographical region
in any given year, or to quantify with any statistical reliability the
number of animals that could potentially be exposed to industrial noise
during this time frame. Nevertheless, based on other
[[Page 33244]]
factors, we are able to deduce with a high degree of confidence that
only small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears are likely to be
impacted by the proposed activities. The factors considered in this
finding are detailed in the ``Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears.''
Comment: Each seismic survey would take approximately 3,000 walrus.
With up to four seismic survey vessels operating simultaneously in the
Chukchi Sea region in any given year, as many as 12,000 walrus takes
could occur each year, with a total of 60,000 walrus taken over the 5-
year duration of the regulations.
The Service believes that the estimated ``takes'' presented by the
commenter are based upon an overly simplistic model (line miles of
survey effort with a calculated zone of influence distributed across a
habitat characterized by a theoretical, uniform animal density) that
over estimates the number of walruses potentiality exposed to seismic
noise by the described activities. While certain aspects of this model
might be considered reasonable for a seismic survey that transected a
long, linear distance, the specified surveys are expected to occur
within relatively small areas, transiting back and forth across a
region of interest. Because of the overlapping zone of influence, the
amount of potential walrus habitat ensonified (and number of walruses
potentially exposed to seismic noise) during any given survey will be
far less than presented by the calculation. The Service also believes
that it is not appropriate to estimate the number of potential
exposures based upon a standard uniform theoretical density as
presented. Based upon the results of previous survey efforts, it is
clear that walruses are not distributed uniformly across the Chukchi
Sea. It is likely that walruses will be absent, or at least widely
distributed during the exploration season at the locations of interest.
The commenter failed to consider any of the site-specific monitoring
requirements or adaptive mitigation measures identified in the Federal
Register notice that are expected to greatly reduce the chances of
activities occurring in areas of high walrus concentrations. The
Service also considered the likelihood that not all potential exposures
would translate into ``takes'' and that any anticipated ``take'' would
be limited merely to temporary shifts in animal behavior in making our
determination.
Comment: The Federal Register notice concludes that anticipated
``takes'' will be limited to nonlethal disturbances, affecting a
relatively small number of animals and that most disturbances will be
relatively short-term in duration. The MMPA only allows take affecting
``small numbers'' of marine mammals, not ``relatively small numbers.''
Response: The Service's analysis of ``small numbers'' complies with
the agency's regulatory definition and is an appropriate reflection of
Congress' intent. As we noted during the development of this definition
(48 FR 31220; July 7, 1983), Congress itself recognized the
``imprecision of the term `small numbers,' but was unable to offer a
more precise formulation because the concept is not capable of being
expressed in absolute numerical limits.'' See H.R. Report No. 97-228 at
19. Thus, Congress focused on the anticipated effects of the activity
on the species and that authorization should be available to persons
``whose taking of marine mammals is infrequent, unavoidable, or
accidental.'' Id.
The Chukchi Sea lease sale area extends over 1.9 million square
kilometers of potential walrus and polar bear habitat. The typical
seismic survey project is expected to sample less than 2 percent of
this area and, because of difficulties associated with operating in and
near pack ice, survey vessels will be operating in habitats where
walrus and polar bear densities are expected to be extremely low. Based
upon previous survey efforts in the region, the expected extent of ice
during the proposed activities, behavior and movement trends of Pacific
walruses and polar bears, we expect industry operations will only
interact with small numbers of these animals in open water habitats. Of
course, some of the proposed exploratory activities will occur on land
as well. However, we have reviewed the proposed activities, both on
land and at sea, and the results of previous monitoring studies in
light of the existing and proposed mitigation measures. This review
leads us to conclude that, while some incidental take of walruses and
polar bears is reasonably expected to occur, these takes will be
limited to non-lethal disturbances, affecting a small number of
animals, and that most disturbances will be relatively short-term in
duration. Furthermore, we do not expect the anticipated level of take
from the proposed activities to affect the rates of recruitment or
survival of either the Pacific walrus or polar bear populations.
Comment: The Service justifies making their ``small numbers'' and
``negligible impacts'' conclusion by stating that ``[b]ased upon
previous seismic monitoring programs, seismic surveys can be expected
to interact with relatively small numbers of walruses swimming in open
water.'' There are multiple problems with this assertion: (1) It
assumes that monitoring programs actually detect all walrus impacted by
exploration activities; (2) it ignores the high density of walrus in
the Chukchi Sea; (3) it ignores the fact that much of the authorized
activity will occur in or near ice; (4) it is only about seismic
surveys, which are only a subset of the numerous exploration
activities; and (5) it ignores the fact that changing ice conditions as
a result of global warming are leading to more walrus being observed in
open water.
Response: Comments related to the Service conclusions regarding
``small numbers'' have been previously addressed. The commenter
correctly points out that marine mammal observers are unlikely to
detect all walruses potentially exposed to noise generated by
exploration activities. Rather, the observer program is designed as an
adaptive measure, which allows operators to quickly respond should a
walrus enter a prescribed safety zone.
The commenter suggests that the Service has ignored the high
density of walruses in the Chukchi Sea. Both the preamble of the
Federal Register Notice and the EA acknowledge that the Chukchi Sea is
important habitat for a significant proportion of the Pacific walrus
population when ice is present. It is important to clarify that
walruses are an ice-dependent species and their distribution and
abundance in the region is largely influenced by the presence or
absence of suitable sea ice habitats. Although the Service acknowledges
that walruses can and do range considerable distances from sea ice
haulouts during migrations or foraging excursions, the species is not
adapted to a pelagic existence, and is not likely to adapt to a pelagic
lifestyle in the absence of sea ice as suggested. Furthermore, the
suggestion that much of the specified activity will occur in or near
sea ice is unfounded. Most of the exploration activities specified in
these regulations are expected to occur in open water conditions some
distance from the pack-ice. Vessel based seismic surveys, which involve
towing hydrophone arrays up to several hundred meters in length, cannot
be accomplished in the presence of sea ice. Offshore exploratory
drilling operations are expected to occur from drill ships requiring
open water conditions. The ice management vessels associated with the
drill ships are a necessary safety and environmental precaution against
potential, but infrequent, incursions of
[[Page 33245]]
sea ice during drilling operations. In the event that icebreaker
operations are necessary, they will be subject to additional monitoring
and mitigation measures, including but not limited to ice scouting and
marine mammal surveys in the vicinity of the drill site. Because most
of the offshore activities will occur in open water conditions some
distance from the sea ice, we expect them to interact with a relatively
small proportion of the Pacific walrus population. In the event that
any walruses are present near exploratory operations, whether in open
water or on intruding sea ice, boat-based monitoring to mitigate
disturbance events will occur. Furthermore, because of the transitory
nature of the authorized activities, we do not anticipate that any
walruses exposed to these operations will exhibit more than short term
behavioral responses.
Comment: It is not apparent that the Service has made a separate
finding that only ``small numbers'' of Pacific walruses and polar bears
will be affected by the proposed authorizations. This is because there
is no apparent numerical estimate of the number of animals that will be
taken by any of the petitioners individually or cumulatively during the
proposed exploration activities.
Response: The Service is confident that only small numbers of
walruses and polar bears will be taken by the proposed activities.
Although a numerical estimate of the number of Pacific walruses and
polar bears that might be taken incidental to specified activities
currently could not be practically obtained, the Service deduced that
only small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears, relative to
their populations, have the potential to be impacted by the proposed
Industry activities described in these regulations. This conclusion was
based on the best available scientific information regarding the
habitat use patterns of walruses and polar bears and the distribution
of walruses and bears relative to where Industry activities are
expected to occur. In addition to our response, we have further
clarified our explanation of small numbers in the regulations (Summary
of Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears).
Comment: The Service has conflated the MMPA's requirement that the
number of takings be small and that the takings have a negligible
impact on a species or stock.
Response: We disagree. The Service's determination that the takings
are of small numbers was analyzed independently of its determination
that those takings would have a negligible impact. Moreover, the
Service's analysis of ``small numbers'' complies with the agency's
regulatory definition and is an appropriate reflection of Congress'
intent. As we noted during the development of this definition (48 FR
31220; July 7, 1983), Congress itself recognized the ``imprecision of
the term `small numbers,' but was unable to offer a more precise
formulation because the concept is not capable of being expressed in
absolute numerical limits.'' See H.R. Report No. 97-228 at 19. Thus
Congress itself focused on the anticipated effects of the activity on
the species and that authorization should be available to persons
``whose taking of marine mammals is infrequent, unavoidable, or
accidental.'' Id. The Service's analysis of negligible impact was based
on the distribution and number of the species during proposed
activities, its biological characteristics, the nature of the proposed
activities, the potential effects, documented impacts, mitigation
measures that will be implemented, as well as other data provided by
monitoring programs in the Beaufort Sea.
Comment: The ``small numbers'' conclusion doesn't include impact
from oil spills and other direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and
doesn't account for climate change.
Response: We disagree. The final EA addresses cumulative impacts,
as did the draft EA within the parameters of the 5-year regulatory time
period. The EA identifies reasonably foreseeable oil and gas-related
and non-oil and gas-related activities in both Federal and State of
Alaska waters. This included oil spill analysis, which reviewed spills
from vessel transport, onshore spills, and potential release of oil
from exploratory well sites. Implementing NEPA requires analysis of a
most likely or reasonably foreseeable scenario when analyzing an issue,
such as oil spills, not a worst case scenario. The Service analyzed
potential oil spills using data from MMS, the State of Alaska, oil
spill contingency plans from Industry, along with known information of
distribution and movements of polar bears and walruses. The type of
spill, amount of oil released, potential locations of spills, their
seasonal timing in addition to life history parameters of the Service
trust species were incorporated into our analysis. We determined that,
while the potential for oil spills to occur exists, they will have a
negligible impact on polar bears and walruses, considering the
likelihood of these events occurring. Other appropriate factors, such
as climate change (addressed throughout the comments), military
activities, and noise contributions from community and commercial
activities were also considered.
5. Subsistence
Comment: The Service conclusion that there will be no unmitigatable
adverse impacts on polar bear and walrus availability for subsistence
uses is not supported.
Response: We disagree. In our analysis of the potential impacts of
the specified activities on subsistence use of polar bears and walruses
we considered: (1) The implementation of exclusion zones around
established hunting areas, such as the twenty-five-mile coastal
deferral zone and the 40-mile seismic exclusion zone surrounding
coastal communities; (2) the timing and location of the specified
activities; (3) the timing and location of subsistence hunting
activities; (4) requirements for community consultations; and (5)
requirements for developing POCs to resolve any conflicts. Furthermore,
the regulatory process will allow the opportunity for communities to
review operational plans and make recommendations for additional
mitigation measures, if necessary.
Comment: The Service should prepare the Plan of Cooperation (POC)
at the beginning of the planning stages to ensure a document is
produced that is acceptable to all parties.
Response: The POC is developed by Industry and is a document that
involves Industry and the affected subsistence communities. It is
included as a section of the incidental take request packet submitted
by Industry to the Service. Within that context, the POC process
requires presentation of project specific information, such as
operation plans, to the communities to identify any specific concerns
that need to be addressed. It is impossible to develop a POC until the
nature of specific projects is identified and the concerns of the
affected community are heard. Coordination with the affected
subsistence communities and development of the POC are the
responsibility of Industry; however, the Service offers guidance during
the process, if necessary. The requirements and process for the POC,
including the Service's right to review and reject the POC if it does
not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that marine mammals will
remain available for subsistence use, are described in the preamble of
the rule and reiterated in the regulations.
Comment: A mandatory POC process diminishes Industry's ability to
plan operations, or to negotiate fair and reasonable operational
restrictions.
[[Page 33246]]
Response: The MMPA requires the Secretary to make a finding that
the total of any authorized incidental take of marine mammals will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species
or stock for taking for subsistence uses. The MMPA further identifies
those exempt from the MMPA and, therefore, able to take marine mammals
for subsistence purposes, i.e. any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo who resides
in Alaska and who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the
Arctic Ocean. The Service has determined that the process of
coordinating with the commissions, who represent the various Native
communities, provides a viable mechanism for ensuring the availability
for subsistence take. Even though a proposed operation may be more than
40 miles from a coastal subsistence-use community, the POC includes
other measures that will be taken to avoid or minimize interferences
with subsistence hunters.
Nonetheless, clarifying language was added indicating that any
activity with the potential to disrupt animals or interact with hunters
within the 25-mile coastal deferral zone and/or within traditional
hunting areas (defined by a 40-mile radius of the communities) will
require the applicant to consult with potentially effected communities
(e.g., open public meeting within the community) and appropriate Native
Hunting Commissions; the Service recognizes the Eskimo Walrus
Commission (EWC) and the Alaska Nanuuq Commission (ANC) as entities
charged with representing the interests of walrus and polar bear
hunters in these communities. Any concerns expressed by the communities
(or Native Commissions) must be addressed through the POC. The Service
will be responsible for determining whether or not community concerns
have been adequately addressed.
Comment: The 40-mile radius identified in the regulations is larger
than the area typically utilized by hunters during the open water
season.
Response: The Service considered the best available information
concerning walrus and polar bear hunting practices along the western
coast of Alaska adjacent to the Chukchi Sea, including several
unpublished reports and self-reported information collected through the
Service MTRP (harvest monitoring) in defining the 40-mile radius around
subsistence hunting communities. Although any additional studies will
be considered if they become available, based on the information at-
hand, the Service believes the 40-mile radius is an accurate depiction
of the open water season area used by walrus and polar bear hunters.
6. Oil Spills and Related Issues
Comment: The Service assumptions that there would be relatively
small volumes of material spilling in open water due to use of blow-out
technology and implementation of MMS operating stipulations is not
adequate. The EA should assess the efficacy of the current spill
prevention technology and clean-up procedures.
Response: We disagree. The Service's analysis acknowledges there is
a potential for spills to occur. However, we believe that the
occurrence of such an event is minimized by adherence to the regulatory
standards that are in place. This is supported by historical evidence,
which indicates that adherence to oil spill plans and management
practices has resulted in no major spills associated with exploratory
work in the Beaufort Sea or the Chukchi Sea. In addition, we believe
that restricting in-water work to the ice-free period (i.e., after July
1 or earlier if the area is deemed ice-free) further minimizes
potential impacts from a spill.
Comment: The Service does not adequately address potential take
from oil or other toxic spills, including potential lethal takes that
may result from the seismic vessels and support operations, drill rigs,
fuel barges, waste disposal, camp operations, survey flights, and
potential ``in-situ'' burning of oil spills.
Response: We disagree. The Service did analyze the potential for
nonlethal take from oil or other toxic spills associated with the
exploration activities described in the preamble of the rule, and
concluded that the potential is small. To date, there have been no
major spills associated with exploration activities in either the
Beaufort or Chukchi Seas. Large spills (> 1,000 bbls) have historically
been associated with production facilities or at pipelines connecting
wells to the pipeline system. It is anticipated that during the
authorized exploratory activities, adherence to the current regulatory
standards and practices for prevention, containment, and clean-up would
minimize potential adverse impacts from oil or other spills.
In addition, the Service concluded the potential for the lethal
take of polar bear or walrus during Industry operations is small. As
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, these regulations
allow for the incidental, but not intentional, take of polar bears and
Pacific walruses. However, this provision does not override
requirements of other environmental legislation, such as the Clean
Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act. In the event of a large spill that
results in the lethal take of polar bears or Pacific walruses, we will
reassess the impacts to polar bear and Pacific walrus populations and
reconsider the appropriateness of authorization for incidental taking
through this regulation.
Comment: The Service does not adequately assess the potential for
oil spills as a result of future development and production.
Response: These regulations are of a finite duration (i.e., five
years) and authorize incidental take associated with specified
exploration activities only. The analyses did not assess the potential
for spills from full-scale development and production because that was
beyond the scope of analysis. If and when a full-scale facility is
proposed, the Service will assess the potential impacts of those
specific activities at that time.
Comment: The Service has failed to assess the risk of fuel or oil
spills to polar bears and walruses during authorized activities.
Response: We disagree. The Service acknowledges that there is a
potential for fuel spills to occur; however, we believe that the
occurrence of such an event is minimized by adherence to regulatory
standards for spill prevention, containment, and cleanup. In the event
of a large spill, we would reassess the impacts to the polar bear and
walrus populations and reconsider the appropriateness of authorizations
for taking through Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Comment: The Service should conduct modeling studies for the
overlay of potential operations with spill trajectories similar to what
was done for the Northstar and Liberty projects.
Response: While we agree that more information and analyses will
continue to improve decision-making abilities, conducting spill
trajectories in a manner similar to those produced for the production
sites of Northstar and Liberty in the Beaufort Sea is not possible for
the types of activities, i.e., exploration, considered under these
regulations. This is because Northstar and Liberty are production
sites, with known location of facilities, whereas specified drill sites
for exploratory activities in the Chukchi Sea are largely unknown at
this time. The Service has participated in developing an oil spill
contingency plan that covers the area of the Chukchi Sea. Under spill
response and contingency planning, federal agencies such as the USCG,
MMS, and
[[Page 33247]]
the Service identify vulnerable natural resource areas and develop
plans to protect these areas in the event of a spill. These 5-year
regulations cover only exploratory activities when, and if, incidental
take regulations are requested for future production activities in the
Chukchi Sea, oil spill analysis using spill trajectories and oil spill
risk assessment or similar analysis techniques will be part of the
future analysis.
Comment: Pre-booming should be removed as a requirement for fuel
transfers during seismic survey operations.
Response: The text has been modified to indicate that operators
must operate in full compliance with an MMS approved Oil Spill
Prevention and Response Plan. Proposed operations in sensitive habitat
areas will be reviewed by the Service on a case-by-case basis and may
result in the prescription of additional mitigation measures (such as
pre-booming of vessels during fuel transfers) through the LOA process.
7. Climate Change
Comment: Potential effects of climate changes must be assessed as
part of a long-term monitoring and mitigation program. A broad-based
population and monitoring impacts assessment program should be
developed to ensure that individual, indirect, and cumulative impacts
do not have significant adverse impacts on populations, and that they
do not adversely affect the availability of marine mammals for
subsistence use.
Response: The scope of climate change goes beyond this analysis,
which is to determine whether the total level of incidental take as a
result of the exploration activities proposed by the oil and gas
industry will have a negligible impact on polar bears and walruses as
well as no unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence use. The Service
has factored the information on climate change and its affects on these
species into the decision-making process and into prescribing the
permissible methods of take, including the mitigation and monitoring
measures that will be required.
Further, the Service, in cooperation with the USGS and the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, surveys and monitors the status and trends
of polar bears and walruses. The prescribed regulations and associated
LOAs will allow us to modify mitigation and monitoring measures as
needed to take into account new information on impacts of climate
change to the polar bear and Pacific walrus populations.
Nonetheless, the objective of these regulations is not to analyze
the impact of climate change on polar bears and walruses but, to
analyze the impact of oil and gas exploration activities on these
species taking into consideration other ongoing factors, which includes
the information gained on climate change. Although effects of climate
change, such as declining sea ice, will likely affect populations, the
majority of predicted takes based on current known data, Service
knowledge of trust species, and previous Industry information from the
Beaufort Sea suggests that the majority of takes will be limited to
changes in behavior of individual animals of limited duration.
Comment: The small number finding is suspect due to the rapid
change that the Arctic is undergoing as a result of global warming. The
retreat of the sea ice from the Alaska coast has had numerous impacts,
such as drowned bears documented by MMS.
Response: The small number finding for these regulations is based
on potential Industry activities and the type of industry/bear
interactions that may occur and incidental take based on those
activities, not events occurring in the natural environment, such as
bears caught in a storm event. Available information does indicate
that, due to changes in the Arctic environment, there may be an
increase in the number of bears swimming offshore, which suggests an
increased susceptibility to storm events. The Service did take this
information into consideration in our analysis.
Although there is a possibility that the exploration activities in
the Chukchi Sea geographic region may encounter polar bears in the
water, recent monitoring (2006 and 2007) and observations conclude that
Industry activities have only encountered small numbers of bears (four
individuals in 2006 and five individuals in 2007) late in the open
water season by support vessels when they were operating near ice
floes. These disturbances have been limited to temporary, short-term
behavior changes. In addition, the mitigation measures we have
prescribed, e.g., 0.5-mile operation exclusion zone around swimming
bears and trained polar bear observers on board the vessels, will
reduce potential interactions between polar bears and offshore seismic
operations. Similarly, the mitigation measures prescribed for onshore
exploratory activities, e.g., measures for avoiding dens and reducing
the potential for human-bear interactions, are designed to reduce the
numbers of takes of bear by Industry. In any event, there will be
constant monitoring during the course of Industry activities and we
will modify the mitigation requirements as necessary to ensure that the
numbers of animals taken remains small.
Comment: Impacts from climate change on walrus are apparent and
further discredit the assumptions used to estimate walrus take from
exploration activities.
Response: The Service agrees that the effects of climate change may
impact Pacific walruses and new information on the extent of the
potential impacts continues to present itself. However, the analysis
for these regulations is not an estimated take due to climate change
but, an estimated incidental take due to exploration activities.
Regardless of climate change impacts similar to those expressed by the
commenter, the Service believes that the mitigation measures we've
prescribed, e.g., restricting the timing of offshore exploration
activities, imposing a 0.5-mile operational exclusion zone, and a
1,000-ft altitude restriction, will ensure that the proposed
exploration activities do not exacerbate the situation. In fact, with
the reporting requirements, we stand to gain a greater understanding of
the impacts and, through the use of adaptive management, can modify the
mitigation requirements or withdraw the regulations as necessary. In
this way, we can monitor and minimize any potential impacts of the
exploration activities.
Comment: Because the status of both the Pacific walrus and Bering/
Chukchi Sea polar bear stock are unknown, the Service cannot conclude
that exploration activities, which will harass thousands of
individuals, will have no more than a ``negligible effect'' on the
stocks. Further, the Service ``negligible impact'' finding fails to
adequately consider that the Chukchi Sea and adjacent areas are
undergoing rapid change as a result of global warming and that impacts
are likely to be even more severe than projected.
Response: The Service admits that we do not have a current number
for actual population status of the Pacific walrus or the Chukchi/
Bering Seas stock of polar bears. We further acknowledge that climate
change must be taken into consideration as it relates to cumulative
impacts on the species. However, before reaching its negligible impact
determination, the Service considered not only the number of potential
incidental takes, but also the type of incidental take anticipated. In
the case of the proposed activities covered by these regulations, we do
not anticipate any lethal takes will occur. We have concluded that
incidental takes will be limited to temporary and transitory
modifications of animal behavior that
[[Page 33248]]
will not have any negative impacts on population levels, regardless of
changes in the environment.
The Service's analysis of negligible impact was based on the
distribution and number of the species during proposed activities, its
biological characteristics, the nature of the proposed activities, the
potential effects, documented impacts, mitigation measures that will be
implemented, as well as other data provided by monitoring programs in
the Beaufort Sea. Taking these factors into consideration, the Service
made a determination that any potential incidental take (i.e.,
harassment) due to Industry activities would have a negligible impact
on polar bears and Pacific walruses.
The Service recognizes that climate change is a long-term,
complicated issue. Although the short-term impacts of declining sea ice
due to climate change on polar bears and walruses were evaluated in the
analysis conducted, it is beyond the scope of these incidental take
regulations to address the potentially wide ranging long-term impacts
of climate change. However, it is important to note that, should
Industry impacts increase during the five-year time period of these
regulations beyond the scope of impacts analyzed, the Service will
review this new information in terms of negligible impact. As
previously indicated, the Service has the ability to withdraw the
regulations if impacts are more than negligible.
8. Other Applicable Agreements/Regulations
Comment: Allowing incidental take is a violation of the 1973
Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears to protect essential polar
bear habitats. The Service must explain how the incidental take
regulations and authorizations will protect such habitats.
Response: The incidental take regulations are consistent with the
Agreement. Article II of the Polar Bear Agreement lists three
obligations of the Parties in protecting polar bear habitat: (1) To
take ``appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which polar bears
are a part;'' (2) to give ``special attention to habitat components
such as denning and feeding sites and migration patterns;'' and (3) to
manage polar bear populations in accordance with ``sound conservation
practices'' based on the best available scientific data. The Service's
actions are consistent with these responsibilities.
Promulgation of these regulations is authorized under Section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. The primary objective of the MMPA is to
maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem with a goal
of maintaining marine mammal populations at optimum sustainable levels.
As such, the MMPA served in large part to provide for domestic
implementation of the Polar Bear Agreement. There are a number of other
statues that augment habitat protection for polar bears; these include,
but are not limited to, the following: Coastal Zone Management Act;
National Wildlife Refuge Act; Clean Water Act; Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; and Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act.
In addition, in 1993, the Secretary of the Interior required that,
before incidental take regulations for the Beaufort Sea region could be
finalized, the Service develop a polar bear habitat conservation
strategy. And, in 1995, the Service developed a Habitat Conservation
Strategy for Polar Bears in Alaska (Strategy). Completed in August of
1995, the Strategy provides a useful tool for habitat conservation and
identifies important habitat areas used by polar bears for denning and
feeding.
This rule is consistent with the Service's treaty obligations
because it incorporates mitigation measures that ensure the protection
of polar bear habitat. The anticipated LOAs for industrial activities
will be conditioned to include area or seasonal timing limitations or
prohibitions, such as placing one-mile avoidance buffers around known
or observed dens (which halts or limits activity until the bear
naturally leaves the den), building roads perpendicular to the coast to
allow for polar bear movements along the coast, and monitoring the
effects of the activities on polar bears.
In addition to the protections provided for known or observed dens,
Industry has assisted in the research of FLIR thermal imagery, which is
useful in detecting the heat signatures of polar bear dens. By
conducting FLIR surveys prior to activities to identify polar bear dens
along with verification of these dens by scent-trained dogs,
disturbance of even unknown denning females is limited. Another area of
Industry support has been the use of digital elevation models and
aerial imagery in identifying habitats suitable for denning.
LOAs will also require the development of polar bear human
interaction plans in order to minimize potential for encounters and to
mitigate for adverse effects should an encounter occur. These plans
protect and enhance the safety of polar bears using habitats within the
area of industrial activity. Finally, as outlined in our regulations at
50 CFR 18.27(f)(5), LOAs may be withdrawn or suspended, if non-
compliance of the prescribed regulations occurs.
Comment: In light of the ESA, the Service should require a
conference opinion for any activity that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any species proposed for listing.
Response: We agree, under section 7(a)(4) of the ESA, each Federal
agency is required to confer with the Secretary on any agency action
that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species
proposed to be listed under the ESA. During the time that the Service
was developing these regulations, the polar bear was proposed for
listing under the ESA. The Service made a determination that this rule
would not pose any likelihood of jeopardy to the species, and
therefore, a 7(a)(4) conference was not required. On May 15, 2008 (73
FR 28212), the polar bear was listed as threatened and the Service has
since completed an intra-Service section 7(a)(2) consultation, which
confirms that these incidental take regulations are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of this species.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations
We have prepared an EA in conjunction with this rulemaking, and
have determined that this rulemaking is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA of 1969. For a copy of the EA,
contact the individual identified above in the section FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
On May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28212) the polar bear was listed as a
threatened species under the ESA. The Service conducted an intra-
Service section 7(a)(2) consultation and completed a Biological Opinion
(BO) concluding that the issuance of these regulations, including the
process for issuing LOAs, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the polar bear.
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the
following four criteria:
[[Page 33249]]
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
We have determined that this rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
The rule is not likely to result in a major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries, or government agencies or have
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also determined that this rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Oil companies and
their contractors conducting exploration, development, and production
activities in Alaska have been identified as the only likely applicants
under the regulations. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required. In addition, these potential applicants have not been
identified as small businesses and, therefore, a Small Entity
Compliance Guide is not required. The analysis for this rule is
available from the individual identified above in the section FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Takings Implications
This rule does not have takings implications under Executive Order
12630 because it authorizes the nonlethal, incidental, but not
intentional, take of walruses and polar bears by oil and gas Industry
companies and thereby exempts these companies from civil and criminal
liability as long as they operate in compliance with the terms of their
LOAs. Therefore, a takings implications assessment is not required.
Federalism Effects
This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under
Executive Order 13132. The MMPA gives the Service the authority and
responsibility to protect walruses and polar bears.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
et seq.), this rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. The
Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million
or more in any given year on local or State governments or private
entities. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million
or greater in any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order
3225, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We
have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Alaska Native
tribes. Through the LOA process identified in the regulations, Industry
presents a Plan of Cooperation with the Native communities most likely
to be affected and engages these communities in numerous informational
meetings.
Civil Justice Reform
The Departmental Solicitor's Office has determined that these
regulations do not unduly burden the judicial system and meet the
applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information collection requirements. We may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Although we had initially planned to combine our information
collection request for the Chukchi Sea into the request package for the
Beaufort Sea (OMB Control No. 1018-0070) because the activities and
requirements are nearly identical, we were not able to finalize the
rule for the Chukchi Sea prior to the expiration date of the
information collection approved for the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, we
separated the requests for approval. The proposed rule for incidental
take regulations in the Chukchi Sea invited interested members of the
public and affected agencies to comment on the proposed information
collection and recordkeeping activities for the Chukchi Sea. We have
addressed all comments received in this preamble.
OMB has approved our collection of information for incidental take
of marine mammals during specified activities in the Chukchi Sea for a
3-year term and assigned OMB Control No. 1018-0139. We will use the
information that we collect to evaluate applications for specific
incidental take regulations from the oil and gas industry to determine
whether such regulations and subsequent LOAs should be issued. The
information is needed to (1) establish the scope of specific incidental
take regulations and (2) evaluate impacts of activities on species or
stocks of marine mammals and on their availability for subsistence uses
by Alaska Natives. It will ensure that applicants considered all
available means for minimizing the incidental take associated with a
specific activity.
We estimate that up to 10 companies will request LOAs and submit
monitoring reports annually for the Chukchi Sea region covered by the
specific regulations. We estimate that the total annual burden
associated with the request will be 792 hours during years when
applications for regulations are required and 492 hours when regulatory
applications are not required. This represents an average annual
estimated burden taken over a 3-year period, which includes the initial
300 hours required to complete the request for specific procedural
regulations. We estimate that there will be an annual average of six
on-site observation reports per LOA. For each LOA expected to be
requested and issued subsequent to issuance of specific procedural
regulations, we estimate that 33.5 hours per project will be invested
(24 hours will be required to complete each request for an LOA,
approximately 1.5 hours will be required for onsite observation
reporting, and 8 hours will be required to complete each final
monitoring report).
Title: Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During Oil and Gas
Exploration Activities in the Chukchi
[[Page 33250]]
Sea and Adjacent Coast of Alaska, 50 CFR 18.27 and 50 CFR 18, Subpart
I.
OMB Number: 1018-0139.
Bureau form number: None.
Frequency of collection: Semiannual.
Description of respondents: Oil and gas industry companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Type of Action Annual number burden hours Total annual
of responses per action burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One time application for procedural regulations................. * 1 300 300
LOA Requests.................................................... 12 24 288
Onsite Monitoring and Observation Reports....................... 72 1.5 108
Final Monitoring Report......................................... 12 8 96
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 97 .............. 792
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Per term of regulations.
Members of the public and affected agencies may comment on these
information collection and recordkeeping activities at any time.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Service, including whether or not the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for
this collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden
of the collection of information on respondents.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection
to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203 (mail); (703) 358-2269 (fax); or hope_grey@fws.gov (e-mail).
Energy Effects
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule provides
exceptions from the taking prohibitions of the MMPA for entities
engaged in the exploration of oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea and
adjacent western coast of Alaska. By providing certainty regarding
compliance with the MMPA, this rule will have a positive effect on
Industry and its activities. Although the rule requires Industry to
take a number of actions, these actions have been undertaken by
Industry for many years as part of similar past regulations. Therefore,
this rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use and does not constitute a significant energy
action. No Statement of Energy Effects is required.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service amends part 18,
subchapter B of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as set forth below.
PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS
0
1. The authority citation of 50 CFR part 18 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
2. Amend part 18 by adding a new subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I--Nonlethal Taking of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Incidental to Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the Chukchi Sea and
Adjacent Coast of Alaska
Sec.
18.111 What specified activities does this subpart cover?
18.112 In what specified geographic region does this subpart apply?
18.113 When is this subpart effective?
18.114 How do I obtain a Letter of Authorization?
18.115 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of
Authorization requests?
18.116 What does a Letter of Authorization allow?
18.117 What activities are prohibited?
18.118 What are the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements?
18.119 What are the information collection requirements?
Subpart I--Nonlethal Taking of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Incidental to Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the Chukchi Sea
and Adjacent Coast of Alaska
Sec. 18.111 What specified activities does this subpart cover?
Regulations in this subpart apply to the nonlethal incidental, but
not intentional, take of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar
bears by you (U.S. citizens as defined in Sec. 18.27(c)) while engaged
in oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent
western coast of Alaska.
Sec. 18.112 In what specified geographic region does this subpart
apply?
This subpart applies to the specified geographic region defined as
the continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean adjacent to western Alaska.
This area includes the waters (State of Alaska and Outer Continental
Shelf waters) and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, which encompasses all
waters north and west of Point Hope (68[deg]20'20'' N, -166[deg]50'40''
W, BGN 1947) to the U.S.-Russia Convention Line of 1867, west of a
north-south line through Point Barrow (71[deg]23'29'' N, -156[deg]
28'30'' W, BGN 1944), and up to 200 miles north of Point Barrow. The
region also includes the terrestrial coastal land 25 miles inland
between the western boundary of the south National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska (NPR-A) near Icy Cape (70[deg]20'00'' N, -148[deg]12'00'' W) and
the north-south line from Point Barrow. This terrestrial region
encompasses a portion of the Northwest and South Planning Areas of the
NPR-A. Figure 1 shows the area where this subpart applies.
[[Page 33251]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JN08.001
Figure 1: The geographic area of the Chukchi Sea and onshore
coastal areas covered by the incidental take regulations.
Sec. 18.113 When is this subpart effective?
Regulations in this subpart are effective from June 11, 2008
through June 11, 2013 for year-round oil and gas exploration
activities.
Sec. 18.114 How do I obtain a Letter of Authorization?
(a) You must be a U.S. citizen as defined in Sec. 18.27(c).
(b) If you are conducting an oil and gas exploration activity in
the specified geographic region described in Sec. 18.112 that may
cause the taking of Pacific walruses (walruses) or polar bears and you
want nonlethal incidental take authorization under this rule, you must
apply for a Letter of Authorization for each exploration activity. You
must submit the application for authorization to our Alaska Regional
Director (see 50 CFR 2.2 for address) at least 90 days prior to the
start of the proposed activity.
(c) Your application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) A description of the activity, the dates and duration of the
activity, the specific location, and the estimated area affected by
that activity, i.e., a plan of operation.
(2) A site-specific plan to monitor and mitigate the effects of the
proposed activity on walruses and polar bears encountered during the
ongoing activities, i.e., a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation
plan. Your monitoring program must document the effects on these marine
mammals and estimate the actual level and type of take. The monitoring
requirements will vary depending on the activity, the location, and the
time of year.
(3) A site-specific polar bear awareness and interaction plan,
i.e., a polar bear interaction plan.
(4) A record of community consultation. Applicants must consult
with potentially affected subsistence communities along the Chukchi Sea
coast (Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow) and appropriate
subsistence user organizations (the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the
Alaska Nanuuq (polar bear) Commission) to discuss the location, timing,
and methods of proposed operations and support activities and identify
any potential conflicts with subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting
activities in the communities. Applications for Letters of
Authorization must include documentation of all consultations with
potentially affected user groups. Documentation must include a summary
of any concerns identified by community members and hunter
organizations, and the applicant's responses to identified concerns.
Mitigation measures are described in Sec. 18.118.
Sec. 18.115 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of
Authorization requests?
(a) We will evaluate each request for a Letter of Authorization
based on the specific activity and the specific geographic location. We
will determine whether the level of activity identified in the request
exceeds that analyzed by us in considering the number of animals likely
to be taken and evaluating whether there will be a negligible impact on
the species or adverse impact on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses. If the level of activity is greater, we will
reevaluate our findings to determine if those findings continue to be
appropriate based on the greater level of activity that you have
requested. Depending on the results of the evaluation, we may grant the
authorization, add further conditions, or deny the authorization.
(b) In accordance with Sec. 18.27(f)(5), we will make decisions
concerning withdrawals of Letters of Authorization,
[[Page 33252]]
either on an individual or class basis, only after notice and
opportunity for public comment.
(c) The requirement for notice and public comment in paragraph (b)
of this section will not apply if we determine that an emergency exists
that poses a significant risk to the well-being of species or stocks of
walruses or polar bears.
Sec. 18.116 What does a Letter of Authorization allow?
(a) Your Letter of Authorization may allow the nonlethal
incidental, but not intentional, take of walruses and polar bears when
you are carrying out one or more of the following activities:
(1) Conducting geological and geophysical surveys and associated
activities;
(2) Drilling exploratory wells and associated activities; or
(3) Conducting environmental monitoring activities associated with
exploration activities to determine specific impacts of each activity.
(b) Each Letter of Authorization will identify conditions or
methods that are specific to the activity and location.
Sec. 18.117 What activities are prohibited?
(a) Intentional take and lethal incidental take of walruses or
polar bears; and
(b) Any take that fails to comply with this part or with the terms
and conditions of your Letter of Authorization.
Sec. 18.118 What are the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements?
(a) Mitigation. Holders of a Letter of Authorization must use
methods and conduct activities in a manner that minimizes to the
greatest extent practicable adverse impacts on walruses and polar
bears, their habitat, and on the availability of these marine mammals
for subsistence uses. Dynamic management approaches, such as temporal
or spatial limitations in response to the presence of marine mammals in
a particular place or time or the occurrence of marine mammals engaged
in a particularly sensitive activity (such as feeding), must be used to
avoid or minimize interactions with polar bears, walruses, and
subsistence users of these resources.
(1) Operating conditions for operational and support vessels.
(i) Operational and support vessels must be staffed with dedicated
marine mammal observers to alert crew of the presence of walruses and
polar bears and initiate adaptive mitigation responses.
(ii) At all times, vessels must maintain the maximum distance
possible from concentrations of walruses or polar bears. Under no
circumstances, other than an emergency, should any vessel approach
within a 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of walruses or polar bears observed on
land or ice.
(iii) Vessel operators must take every precaution to avoid
harassment of concentrations of feeding walruses when a vessel is
operating near these animals. Vessels should reduce speed and maintain
a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi) operational exclusion zone around feeding
walrus groups. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate
members of a group of walruses from other members of the group. When
weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, vessels
should adjust speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to
walruses.
(iv) The transit of operational and support vessels through the
specified geographic region is not authorized prior to July 1. This
operating condition is intended to allow walruses the opportunity to
disperse from the confines of the spring lead system and minimize
interactions with subsistence walrus hunters. Exemption waivers to this
operating condition may be issued by the Service on a case-by-case
basis, based upon a review of seasonal ice conditions and available
information on walrus and polar bear distributions in the area of
interest.
(v) All vessels must avoid areas of active or anticipated
subsistence hunting for walrus or polar bear as determined through
community consultations.
(2) Operating conditions for aircraft.
(i) Operators of support aircraft should, at all times, conduct
their activities at the maximum distance possible from concentrations
of walruses or polar bears.
(ii) Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, should
aircraft operate at an altitude lower than 305 m (1,000 ft) within 805
m (0.5 mi) of walruses or polar bears observed on ice or land.
Helicopters may not hover or circle above such areas or within 805 m
(0.5 mile) of such areas. When weather conditions do not allow a 305-m
(1,000-ft) flying altitude, such as during severe storms or when cloud
cover is low, aircraft may be operated below the 305-m (1,000-ft)
altitude stipulated above. However, when aircraft are operated at
altitudes below 305 m (1,000 ft) because of weather conditions, the
operator must avoid areas of known walrus and polar bear concentrations
and should take precautions to avoid flying directly over or within 805
m (0.5 mile) of these areas.
(iii) Plan all aircraft routes to minimize any potential conflict
with active or anticipated walrus or polar bear hunting activity as
determined through community consultations.
(3) Additional mitigation measures for offshore exploration
activities.
(i) Offshore exploration activities will be authorized only during
the open-water season, defined as the period July 1 to November 30.
Exemption waivers to the specified open-water season may be issued by
the Service on a case-by-case basis, based upon a review of seasonal
ice conditions and available information on walrus and polar bear
distributions in the area of interest.
(ii) To avoid significant additive and synergistic effects from
multiple oil and gas exploration activities on foraging or migrating
walruses, operators must maintain a minimum spacing of 24 km (15 mi)
between all active seismic-source vessels and/or exploratory drilling
operations. No more than four simultaneous seismic operations will be
authorized in the Chukchi Sea region at any time.
(iii) No offshore exploration activities will be authorized within
a 64-km (40-mi) radius of the communities of Barrow, Wainwright, Point
Lay, or Point Hope, unless provided for in a Service-approved, site-
specific Plan of Cooperation as described in paragraph (a)(6) of this
section.
(iv) Aerial monitoring surveys or an equivalent monitoring program
acceptable to the Service will be required to estimate the number of
walruses and polar bears in a proposed project area.
(4) Additional mitigation measures for offshore seismic surveys.
Any offshore exploration activity expected to include the production of
pulsed underwater sounds with sound source levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
will be required to establish and monitor acoustic exclusion and
disturbance zones and implement adaptive mitigation measures as
follows:
(i) Monitor zones. Establish and monitor with trained marine mammal
observers an acoustically verified exclusion zone for walruses
surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received level would be
[gteqt] 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa; an acoustically verified exclusion zone for
polar bear surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received level
would be [gteqt] 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa; and an acoustically verified
walrus disturbance zone ahead of and perpendicular to the seismic
vessel track where the received level would be [gteqt] 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa.
(ii) Ramp-up procedures. For all seismic surveys, including airgun
testing, use the following ramp-up
[[Page 33253]]
procedures to allow marine mammals to depart the exclusion zone before
seismic surveying begins:
(A) Visually monitor the exclusion zone and adjacent waters for the
absence of polar bears and walruses for at least 30 minutes before
initiating ramp-up procedures. If no polar bears or walruses are
detected, you may initiate ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate ramp-up
procedures at night or when you cannot visually monitor the exclusion
zone for marine mammals.
(B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single airgun. The
preferred airgun to begin with should be the smallest airgun, in terms
of energy output (dB) and volume (in\3\).
(C) Continue ramp-up by gradually activating additional airguns
over a period of at least 20 minutes, but no longer than 40 minutes,
until the desired operating level of the airgun array is obtained.
(iii) Power down/Shut down.--Immediately power down or shut down
the seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic sources whenever any
walruses are sighted approaching close to or within the area delineated
by the 180-dB re 1 [mu]Pa walrus exclusion zone, or polar bears are
sighted approaching close to or within the area delineated by the 190-
dB re 1 [mu]Pa polar bear exclusion zone. If the power down operation
cannot reduce the received sound pressure level to 180-dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(walrus) or 190-dB re 1 [mu]Pa (polar bears), the operator must
immediately shut down the seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic
sources.
(iv) Emergency shut down.--If observations are made or credible
reports are received that one or more walruses and/or polar bears are
within the area of the seismic survey and are in an injured or mortal
state, or are indicating acute distress due to seismic noise, the
seismic airgun array will be immediately shut down and the Service
contacted. The airgun array will not be restarted until review and
approval has been given by the Service. The ramp-up procedures provided
in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section must be followed when
restarting.
(v) Adaptive response for walrus aggregations.--Whenever an
aggregation of 12 or more walruses are detected within an acoustically
verified 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa disturbance zone ahead of or perpendicular
to the seismic vessel track, the holder of this Authorization must:
(A) Immediately power down or shut down the seismic airgun array
and/or other acoustic sources to ensure sound pressure levels at the
shortest distance to the aggregation do not exceed 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa;
and
(B) Not proceed with powering up the seismic airgun array until it
can be established that there are no walrus aggregations within the
160-dB zone based upon ship course, direction, and distance from last
sighting. If shut down was required, the ramp-up procedures provided in
paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section must be followed when restarting.
(5) Additional mitigation measures for onshore exploration
activities.
(i) Polar bear interaction plan.--Holders of Letters of
Authorization will be required to develop and implement a Service-
approved, site-specific polar bear interaction plan. Polar bear
awareness training will also be required of certain personnel. Polar
bear interaction plans will include:
(A) A description of the locations and types of activities to be
conducted i.e., a plan of operation;
(B) A food and waste management plan;
(C) Personnel training materials and procedures;
(D) Site at-risk locations and situations;
(E) A snow management plan;
(F) Polar bear observation and reporting procedures; and
(G) Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures.
(ii) Polar bear monitors.--If deemed appropriate by the Service,
holders of a Letter of Authorization will be required to hire and train
polar bear monitors to alert crew of the presence of polar bears and
initiate adaptive mitigation responses.
(iii) Efforts to minimize disturbance around known polar bear
dens.--Holders of a Letter of Authorization must take efforts to limit
disturbance around known polar bear dens.
(A) Efforts to locate polar bear dens.--Holders of a Letter of
Authorization seeking to carry out onshore exploration activities in
known or suspected polar bear denning habitat during the denning season
(November-April) must make efforts to locate occupied polar bear dens
within and near proposed areas of operation, utilizing appropriate
tools, such as forward looking infrared (FLIR) imagery and/or polar
bear scent-trained dogs. All observed or suspected polar bear dens must
be reported to the Service prior to the initiation of exploration
activities.
(B) Exclusion zone around known polar bear dens.--Operators must
observe a 1-mile operational exclusion zone around all known polar bear
dens during the denning season (November-April, or until the female and
cubs leave the areas). Should previously unknown occupied dens be
discovered within 1 mile of activities, work in the immediate area must
cease and the Service contacted for guidance. The Service will evaluate
these instances on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate
action. Potential actions may range from cessation or modification of
work to conducting additional monitoring, and the holder of the
authorization must comply with any additional measures specified.
(6) Mitigation measures for the subsistence use of walruses and
polar bears. Holders of Letters of Authorization must conduct their
activities in a manner that, to the greatest extent practicable,
minimizes adverse impacts on the availability of Pacific walruses and
polar bears for subsistence uses.
(i) Community Consultation.--Prior to receipt of a Letter of
Authorization, applicants must consult with potentially affected
communities and appropriate subsistence user organizations to discuss
potential conflicts with subsistence hunting of walrus and polar bear
caused by the location, timing, and methods of proposed operations and
support activities (see Sec. 18.114(c)(4) for details). If community
concerns suggest that the proposed activities may have an adverse
impact on the subsistence uses of these species, the applicant must
address conflict avoidance issues through a Plan of Cooperation as
described below.
(ii) Plan of Cooperation (POC).--Where prescribed, holders of
Letters of Authorization will be required to develop and implement a
Service-approved POC. The POC must include:
(A) A description of the procedures by which the holder of the
Letter of Authorization will work and consult with potentially affected
subsistence hunters; and
(B) A description of specific measures that have been or will be
taken to avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of
walruses and polar bears and to ensure continued availability of the
species for subsistence use.
(C) The Service will review the POC to ensure that any potential
adverse effects on the availability of the animals are minimized. The
Service will reject POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the availability of
walruses and polar bears for subsistence use.
(b) Monitoring. Depending on the siting, timing, and nature of
proposed activities, holders of Letters of Authorization will be
required to:
[[Page 33254]]
(1) Maintain trained, Service-approved, on-site observers to carry
out monitoring programs for polar bears and walruses necessary for
initiating adaptive mitigation responses.
(i) Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) will be required on board all
operational and support vessels to alert crew of the presence of
walruses and polar bears and initiate adaptive mitigation responses
identified in paragraph (a) of this section, and to carry out specified
monitoring activities identified in the marine mammal monitoring and
mitigation plan (see paragraph(b)(2) of this section) necessary to
evaluate the impact of authorized activities on walruses, polar bears,
and the subsistence use of these subsistence resources. The MMOs must
have completed a marine mammal observer training course approved by the
Service.
(ii) Polar bear monitors.--Polar bear monitors will be required
under the monitoring plan if polar bears are known to frequent the area
or known polar bear dens are present in the area. Monitors will act as
an early detection system in regard to proximate bear activity to
Industry facilities.
(2) Develop and implement a site-specific, Service-approved marine
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor and evaluate the
effects of authorized activities on polar bears, walruses, and the
subsistence use of these resources.
(i) The marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan must enumerate
the number of walruses and polar bears encountered during specified
exploration activities, estimate the number of incidental takes that
occurred during specified exploration activities, and evaluate the
effectiveness of prescribed mitigation measures.
(ii) Applicants must fund an independent peer review of proposed
monitoring plans and draft reports of monitoring results. This peer
review will consist of independent reviewers who have knowledge and
experience in statistics, marine mammal behavior, and the type and
extent of the proposed operations. The applicant will provide the
results of these peer reviews to the Service for consideration in final
approval of monitoring plans and final reports. The Service will
distribute copies of monitoring reports to appropriate resource
management agencies and co-management organizations.
(3) Cooperate with the Service and other designated Federal, State,
and local agencies to monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration
activities in the Chukchi Sea on walruses or polar bears. Where
insufficient information exists to evaluate the potential effects of
proposed activities on walruses, polar bears, and the subsistence use
of these resources, holders of Letters of Authorization may be required
to participate in joint monitoring and/or research efforts to address
these information needs and insure the least practicable impact to
these resources. Information needs in the Chukchi Sea include, but are
not limited to:
(i) Distribution, abundance, and habitat use patterns of walruses
and polar bears in offshore environments; and
(ii) Cumulative effects of multiple simultaneous operations on
walruses and polar bears.
(c) Reporting requirements. Holders of Letters of Authorization
must report the results of specified monitoring activities to the
Service's Alaska Regional Director (see 50 CFR 2.2 for address).
(1) In-season monitoring reports.
(i) Activity progress reports.--Operators must keep the Service
informed on the progress of authorized activities by:
(A) Notifying the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
(B) Providing weekly progress reports of authorized activities
noting any significant changes in operating state and or location; and
(C) Notifying the Service within 48 hours of ending activity.
(ii) Walrus observation reports.--The operator must report, on a
weekly basis, all observations of walruses during any Industry
operation. Information within the observation report will include, but
is not limited to:
(A) Date, time, and location of each walrus sighting;
(B) Number of walruses: sex and age;
(C) Observer name and contact information;
(D) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of
observation;
(E) Estimated range at closest approach;
(F) Industry activity at time of sighting;
(G) Behavior of animals sighted;
(H) Description of the encounter;
(I) Duration of the encounter; and
(J) Actions taken.
(iii) Polar bear observation reports.--The operator must report,
within 24 hours, all observations of polar bears during any Industry
operation. Information within the observation report will include, but
is not limited to:
(A) Date, time, and location of observation;
(B) Number of bears: sex and age;
(C) Observer name and contact information;
(D) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of
observation;
(E) Estimated closest point of approach for bears from personnel
and facilities;
(F) Industry activity at time of sighting, possible attractants
present;
(G) Bear behavior;
(H) Description of the encounter;
(I) Duration of the encounter; and
(J) Actions taken.
(iv) Notification of incident report.--Reports should include all
information specified under the species observation report, as well as
a full written description of the encounter and actions taken by the
operator. The operator must report to the Service within 24 hours:
(A) Any incidental lethal take or injury of a polar bear or walrus;
and
(B) Observations of walruses or polar bears within prescribed
mitigation-monitoring zones.
(2) After-action monitoring reports. The results of monitoring
efforts identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan
must be submitted to the Service for review within 90 days of
completing the year's activities. Results must include, but are not
limited to, the following information:
(i) A summary of monitoring effort including: total hours, total
distances, and distribution through study period;
(ii) Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability
of walruses and polar bears by specified monitoring;
(iii) Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of
walrus and polar bear sightings in relation to date, location, ice
conditions, and operational state; and
(iv) Estimates of take based on density estimates derived from
monitoring and survey efforts.
Sec. 18.119 What are the information collection requirements?
(a) We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The Office of Management and Budget has
approved the collection of information contained in this subpart and
assigned control number 1018-0139. You must respond to this information
collection request to obtain a benefit pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We will use the information to:
(1) Evaluate the application and determine whether or not to issue
specific Letters of Authorization and;
(2) Monitor impacts of activities conducted under the Letters of
Authorization.
[[Page 33255]]
(b) You should direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any
other aspect of this requirement to the Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Mail Stop 222 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC
20240.
Dated: May 1, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E8-12918 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P