[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1941-1989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31347]
[[Page 1941]]
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 6
January 9, 2013
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 18
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 1942]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043; FF07CAMM00-FXFR133707PB000]
RIN 1018-AY67
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA), and its implementing regulations, we, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service or we), propose 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. If adopted as proposed, this rule would be effective for 5
years from the date of issuance of the final rule.
We propose a finding 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 proposed 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 of any incidental takings
which may occur, to the Service. If this rule is made final, the
Service will issue Letters of Authorization (LOAs), upon request, for
activities proposed to be conducted in accordance with the regulations.
DATES: We will consider comments we receive on or before February 8,
2013.
ADDRESSES:
Document Availability: You can view this proposed rule and the
associated draft environmental assessment (EA) on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043.
Written Comments: You may submit comments on the proposed rule and
associated draft EA by one of the following methods:
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-
ES-2012-0043.
Please indicate to which document, the proposed rule or the draft
EA, your comments apply. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Perham, Marine Mammals
Management Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, 1011 East
Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone 907-786-3800. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why We Need To Publish a Proposed Rule
Incidental take regulations (ITRs), under section 101(a)(5)(A) of
the MMPA, allow for incidental, but not intentional, take of small
numbers of marine mammals that may occur during the conduct of
otherwise lawful activities within a specific geographical region.
Prior to issuing ITRs, if requested to do so by the public, the Service
must first determine that the total of such taking during each 5-year
(or less) period concerned will have a negligible impact on marine
mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses by
Alaska Natives. The Service has considered a request from the oil and
gas industry to issue ITRs in the Chukchi Sea for a 5-year period to
allow for the nonlethal, incidental taking of polar bears or walruses
during their open water oil and gas exploration activities. The Service
is proposing issuance of ITRs based on our considerations of potential
impacts to polar bears and Pacific walrus as well as potential impacts
to subsistence use of polar bears and Pacific walruses.
What is the effect of this proposed rule?
The ITRs provide a mechanism for the Service to work with Industry
to minimize the effects of Industry activity on marine mammals through
appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures, which provide important
information on marine mammal distribution, behavior, movements, and
interactions with Industry.
The Basis for Our Action
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 walruses and on polar bears and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for
taking for subsistence uses by Alaska Natives.
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
consider comments sent by email or fax, or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16
[[Page 1943]]
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary),
through the Director of the Service, the authority to allow the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals, in response to requests by U.S. citizens [as defined in 50 CFR
18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) in a specified geographic region. According to the MMPA, the
Service shall allow this incidental taking if (1) we make a finding
that the total of such taking for the 5-year timeframe of the
regulations 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
Letters of Authorization (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 ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact''
are defined at 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small takes of
marine mammals incidental to specified activities) as follows.
``Negligible impact'' is ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.'' ``Unmitigable adverse
impact'' means ``an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly
displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.''
The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in the regulations, but we
do not rely on that definition here as it conflates the ``small
numbers'' and ``negligible impact'' requirements, which we recognize as
two separate and distinct requirements for promulgating ITRs under the
MMPA. Instead, in our small numbers determination, we evaluate whether
small numbers of marine mammals are relative to the overall population.
Industry conducts activities, such as oil and gas exploration, in
marine mammal habitat that could result in the incidental taking of
marine mammals. Although Industry is under no legal requirement under
the MMPA 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 to 1996 (56 FR
27443; June 14, 1991) and 2008 to 2013 (73 FR 33212; June 11, 2008).
These regulations are at 50 CFR part 18, subpart I (Sec. Sec. 18.111
to 18.119). 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); August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926), and August 3, 2011 (76 FR 47010).
These regulations are at 50 CFR part 18, subpart J (Sec. Sec. 18.121
to 18.129).
Summary of Current Request
On January 31, 2012, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), on
behalf of its members, and ConocoPhillips, Alaska, Inc. (CPAI), a
participating party, requested that the Service promulgate regulations
to allow the nonlethal, incidental take of small numbers of walruses
and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea and the adjacent western coast of
Alaska. AOGA requested that the regulations would be applicable to all
persons conducting activities associated with oil and gas exploration
as described in its Petition for a period of 5 years. AOGA is a
private, nonprofit trade association representing companies active in
the Alaskan oil and gas industry. AOGA's members include: Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company, Apache Corporation, BP Exploration (Alaska)
Inc., Chevron, Eni Petroleum, ExxonMobil Production Company, Flint
Hills Resources, Inc., Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, Marathon Oil Company, Petro
Star Inc., Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Inc., Repsol, Shell Gulf
of Mexico, Inc., Statoil, Tesoro Alaska Company, and XTO Energy, Inc.
The request is 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 for
the period from June 11, 2013, to June 11, 2018. 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 request. Within that time, oil and gas exploration activities
could occur during any month of the year, depending on the type of
activity. Most offshore activities, such as exploration drilling,
seismic surveys, and shallow hazards surveys, are expected to occur
only during the open water season (July-November). Onshore activities
may occur during winter (e.g., geotechnical studies), spring (e.g.,
hydrological studies), or summer-fall (e.g., various fish and wildlife
surveys). 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 would 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. The Service is
tasked with analyzing the impact that lawful oil and gas industry
activities would have on polar bears and walruses during normal
operating procedures.
All projected exploration activities described by CPAI and AOGA (on
behalf of its members) in their petition, as well as projections of
reasonably likely activities for the period 2013 to 2018, were
considered in our analysis. The activities and geographic region
specified in the request, and considered in these regulations, are
described in the ensuing sections titled ``Description of
[[Page 1944]]
Geographic Region'' and ``Description of Activities.''
Description of Proposed Regulations
The regulations that we propose to issue include: Permissible
methods of nonlethal taking; measures to ensure the least practicable
adverse impact on the species and the availability of these species for
subsistence uses; and requirements for monitoring and reporting. These
regulations would not authorize, or ``permit,'' the actual activities
associated with oil and gas exploration, e.g., seismic testing,
drilling, or sea floor mapping. Rather, they would authorize the
nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar
bears and walruses associated with those activities based on standards
set forth in the MMPA. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM),
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), 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.
If we finalize these regulations, persons seeking taking
authorization for particular projects would be able to apply for an LOA
to the Service for the incidental, nonlethal take associated with
exploration activities pursuant to the regulations. Each group or
individual conducting an oil and gas industry-related activity within
the area covered by these regulations would be able to request an LOA.
Applicants for LOAs would have to submit an Operations Plan for the
activity, a marine mammal (Pacific walrus and polar bear) interaction
plan, and a site specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan
to monitor any effects of authorized activities on walruses and polar
bears. An after-action report on exploration activities and marine
mammal monitoring activities would have to be submitted to the Service
within 90 days after completion of the 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.''
Applicants would also have to include a Plan of Cooperation (POC)
describing the availability of these species for subsistence use by
Alaska Native Communities and how that availability may be affected by
Industry operations. The purpose of the POC is to ensure that oil and
gas activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or the stock for subsistence uses. The POC
must provide the procedures on how Industry will work with the affected
Alaska Native Communities, including a description of the necessary
actions that will be taken to: (1) Avoid or minimize interference with
subsistence hunting of polar bears and walruses; and (2) ensure
continued availability of the species for subsistence use. The POC is
further described in ``Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry
Activities on Subsistence Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.''
If these proposed regulations are implemented, we would evaluate
each request for an LOA based on the specific activity and specific
location, and may condition the LOA depending on specific circumstances
for that activity and location. More information on applying for and
receiving an LOA can be found at 50 CFR 18.27(f).
Description of Geographic Region
These regulations would allow Industry operators to incidentally
take small numbers of walruses and polar bears within the same area,
hereafter referred to as the Chukchi Sea Region (Figure 1; see Proposed
Regulation Promulgation section). The geographic area covered by the
request is the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 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 BOEM/BSEE 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 specified geographic region encompasses an
area of approximately 240,000 square kilometers (km) (approximately
92,644 square miles). This terrestrial region encompasses a portion
(i.e., approximately 10,000 km\2\ (3,861 mi\2\)) of the Northwest and
South Planning Areas of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (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 (August 3, 2011; 76 FR 47010).
Description of Activities
These proposed ITRs examine exploratory drilling, seismic surveys,
geotechnical surveys, and shallow hazards surveys to be conducted in
the Chukchi Sea from June 11, 2013, to June 11, 2018. This time period
includes the entire open water seasons of 2013 through 2017, when
activities such as exploration drilling, seismic surveys, geotechnical
surveys, and shallow hazards surveys are likely to occur, but
terminates before the start of the 2018 open water season.
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 (2013 to 2018). Activities covered in these regulations include
Industry exploration operations of oil and gas reserves, as well as
environmental monitoring associated with these activities, on the
western coast of Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf of the Chukchi
Sea. This information is based upon activity descriptions provided by
the petitioners (sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the AOGA Petition for
Incidental Take Regulations for Oil and Gas Activities in the Chukchi
Sea and Adjacent Lands in 2013 to 2018, January 31, 2012). If LOAs are
requested for activities that exceed the scope of activities analyzed
under these proposed regulations, the LOAs would not be issued, and the
Service would reevaluate its findings before further LOAs are issued.
The ITRs requested are for the period from June 11, 2013, to June
11, 2018. Within that time, oil and gas exploration activities could
occur during any month of the year, depending on the type of activity.
Most offshore activities, such as exploration drilling, seismic
surveys, and shallow hazards surveys, are expected to occur only during
the open-water season (July-November). Onshore activities may occur
during winter (e.g., geotechnical studies), spring (e.g., hydrological
studies), or summer-fall (e.g., various fish and wildlife surveys).
The Service does not know the specific locations where oil and gas
exploration would occur over the proposed timeframe of the regulations.
The location and scope of specific activities would 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
[[Page 1945]]
would be carried out during the open water season to avoid seasonal
pack ice. Onshore activities would be limited and are not expected to
occur in the vicinity of known polar bear denning areas or coastal
walrus haulouts.
These ITRs would not authorize the execution, placement, or
location of Industry activities; they could only authorize incidental,
nonlethal take of walruses and polar bears. Authorizing the activity at
particular locations is part of the permitting process that is
authorized by the lead permitting agency, such as BOEM/BSEE, the COE,
or BLM. The specific dates and durations of the individual operations
and their geographic locations would be provided to the Service in
detail when requests for LOAs are submitted.
Oil and gas activities anticipated and considered in our analysis
of the proposed incidental take regulations include: (1) Offshore
exploration drilling; (2) offshore 3D and 2D seismic surveys; (3)
shallow hazards surveys; (4) other geophysical surveys, such as ice
gouge, strudel scour, and bathymetry surveys; (5) geotechnical surveys;
(6) onshore and offshore environmental studies; and (7) associated
support activities for the afore-mentioned activities. Of these,
offshore drilling and seismic surveys are expected to have the greatest
effects on Pacific walruses, polar bears, and subsistence. A summary
description of the anticipated activities follows, while detailed
descriptions provided by the petitioners are available on the Service's
Marine Mammals Management Web page at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm.
Offshore Exploration Drilling
Offshore exploration drilling would be conducted from either a
floating drilling unit, such as a drillship or conical drilling unit,
or a jack-up drilling platform. Exploration drilling with these types
of drilling units would occur during the open water season, generally
July through November, when the presence of ice is at a minimum.
Petitioners indicate that bottom-founded platforms would not be used
during exploration activities due to water depths greater than 30
meters (m) (100 feet [ft]) and possible pack ice incursions. Drilling
operations are expected to range between 30 and 90 days at individual
well sites, depending on the depth to the target formation, and
difficulties during drilling. The drilling units and any support
vessels would enter the Chukchi Sea at the beginning of the season and
exit the sea at the end of the season. Drillships are generally self-
propelled, whereas jack-up rigs must be towed to the drill site. These
drilling units are largely self-contained with accommodations for the
crew, including quarters, galleys, and sanitation facilities. The
operating season is expected to be limited to the open water season
from July 1 to November 30.
Drilling operations would include multiple support vessels in
addition to the drillship or platform, including ice management
vessels, survey vessels, and on and offshore support facilities. For
example, each drillship 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. Ice management is expected to be
required for only a small portion of the drilling season, if at all,
given the lack of sea ice observed over most current lease holdings in
the Chukchi Sea Region in recent years. Most ice management would
consist of actively pushing the ice off its trajectory with the bow of
the ice management vessel, but some icebreaking could be required. One
or more ice management vessels (ice breakers) generally support
drillships to ensure ice does not encroach on operations. Geophysical
surveys referred to as vertical seismic profiles (VSPs) will likely be
conducted at many of the Chukchi Sea Region drill sites where and when
an exploration well is being drilled. The purpose of the survey is to
ground truth existing seismic data with geological information from the
wellbore. A small airgun array is deployed at a location near or
adjacent to the drilling unit, and receivers are placed (temporarily
anchored) in the wellbore. Exploration drilling programs may entail
both onshore support facilities for air support where aircraft serving
crew changes, search and rescue, and/or re-supply functions where
support facilities would be housed and marine support where vessels may
access the shoreline. For offshore support purposes, 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 drillship and support vessels. Helicopter servicing of
drillships can occur as frequently as one to two times per day.
Since 1989, five exploration wells have been drilled in the Chukchi
Sea. Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate
that up to three operators would drill a total of three to eight wells
per year in the Chukchi Sea Region during the 5-year timeframe of these
proposed regulations (June 2013 to June 2018).
Offshore 2D and 3D Seismic Surveys
Seismic survey equipment includes sound energy sources (airguns)
and receivers (hydrophones/geophones). The airguns store compressed air
that upon release forms a bubble that expands and contracts in a
predictable pattern, emitting sound waves. The sound energy from the
source penetrates the seafloor and is reflected back to the surface
where it is recorded and analyzed to produce graphic images of the
subsurface features. Differences in the properties of the various rock
layers found at different depths reflect the sound energy at different
positions and times. This reflected energy is received by the
hydrophones housed in submerged streamers towed behind the survey
vessel.
The two general types of offshore seismic surveys, 2D and 3D
surveys, use similar technology but differ in survey transect patterns,
number of transects, number of sound sources and receptors, and data
analysis. For both types, 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 49,161 to
65,548 cm\3\ (3,000 to 4,000 in\3\) operated at about 2,000 pounds per
square inch (psi) (13,789.5 kilopascal [kPa]). 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.
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 primary difference between the two
survey types is that a 3D survey has a denser grid for the transect
pattern. The 2D surveys provide a less detailed subsurface image
because the survey lines are spaced farther apart, but they are
generally designed to 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
[[Page 1946]]
marine seismic surveys are the same as 3D marine seismic surveys (233
to 240 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m). Typically, a single hydrophone streamer
cable approximately 8 to 12 km (~5 to 7.5 mi) long is towed behind the
survey vessel. The 2D surveys acquire data along single track lines
that are spread more widely apart (usually several km) than are track
lines for 3D surveys (usually several hundred meters).
A 3D source array typically consists of two to three sub-arrays of
six to nine air guns each, and is about 12.5 to 18 m (41 to 59 ft) long
and 16 to 36 m (52.5 to 118 ft) 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. 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 (dB) at 1 m (dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m).
The receiving arrays could include multiple (4 to 16) streamer
receiver cables towed behind the source array. The survey vessel may
tow up to 12 cables, or streamers, of up to 8.0 km (5.0 mi) in length,
spaced 50 to 150 m (164 to 492 ft) apart. Streamer cables contain
numerous hydrophone elements at fixed distances within each cable. Each
streamer can be 3 to 8 km (2 to 5 mi) long with an overall array width
of up to 1,500 m (1,640 yards) between outermost streamer cables. 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 throughout the open water season, 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 between 25 and 30 percent of the time (or 6 to 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. In the past, BOEM/BSEE has estimated that
individual surveys could last between 20 to 30 days (with downtime) to
cover a 322-km\2\ (200-mi\2\) area.
Both 3D and 2D seismic 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 would be dictated by ice conditions. Given optimal
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; hence
there is no guarantee that any given location will be ice-free
throughout the survey.
In our analysis of the previous 5-year Chukchi Sea regulations
(2008-2013), we estimated that up to three seismic programs operating
annually, totaling up to 15 surveys over the span of the regulations,
would have negligible effects on small numbers of animals. Since 2006,
only seven seismic surveys have been actually conducted in total in the
Chukchi Sea. During the 2006 open water season, three seismic surveys
were conducted, while only one seismic survey was conducted during the
2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011 open water seasons, respectively. For the 5-
year time period of the regulations proposed here (2013 to 2018), based
upon information provided by the petitioners, the Service estimates
that, in any given year during the specified time period of the
proposed regulations (2013 to 2018), one seismic survey program (2D or
3D) could operate in the Chukchi Sea Region during the open water
season. We estimate that each seismic survey vessel would be
accompanied or serviced by one to three support vessels. Helicopters
may also be used, when available, for vessel support and crew changes.
Shallow Hazards Surveys
Shallow hazards surveys in the Chukchi Sea Region are expected to
be conducted for all OCS leases in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.
Shallow hazards surveys, also known as site clearance or high
resolution surveys, are conducted to collect bathymetric data and
information on the shallow geology down to depths of about 450 m (1,500
ft) below the seafloor at areas identified as potential drill sites.
Detailed maps of the seafloor surface and shallow sub-surface are
produced with the resulting data in order to identify potential hazards
in the area. Shallow hazards surveys must be conducted at all
exploration drill sites in the OCS before drilling can be approved by
BOEM/BSEE. Specific requirements for these shallow hazards surveys are
presented in BOEM/BSEE's Notice to Lessee (NTL) 05-A01. Potential
hazards may include: Shallow faults; shallow gas; permafrost; hydrates;
and/or archaeological features, such as shipwrecks. Drilling permits
will only be issued by the BOEM/BSEE for locations that avoid or
minimize any risks of encountering these types of features.
Equipment used in past surveys included sub-bottom profilers,
multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side scan sonar, high resolution seismic
(airgun array or sparker), and magnetometers. Equipment to be used in
future surveys in 2013 to 2018 would be expected to be these and
similar types of equipment as required by the BOEM/BSEE NTLs.
Shallow hazards surveys are conducted from vessels during the
summer or open water season along a series of transects, with different
line spacing depending on the proximity to the proposed drill site and
geophysical equipment to be used. Generally, a single vessel is
required to conduct the survey, but in the Chukchi Sea an additional
vessel is often used as a marine mammal monitoring platform. The
geophysical equipment is either hull mounted or towed behind the
vessel, and sometimes is located on an autonomous underwater vehicle
(AUV). Small airgun arrays with a total volume of 258 cm\3\ (40 in\3\)
and pressured to about 2,000 psi (13,789.5 kPa) have been used as the
energy source for past high resolution seismic surveys and would be
expected to be used in future surveys in 2013 to 2018, but larger or
smaller airguns under more or lesser pressure may be used. Sparkers
have also been used in the Chukchi Sea in the past and may be used in
the future. The magnetometer is used to locate and identify any human-
made ferrous objects that might be on the seafloor.
From the beginning of the previous regulations (2008 to 2012), four
shallow hazards and site clearance surveys were actually conducted.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate that
during the timeframe of the proposed regulations (2013 to 2018), up to
two operators would conduct from four to seven shallow hazards surveys
annually.
Marine Geophysical Surveys
Other types of geophysical surveys are expected to occur during the
proposed regulatory timeframe from 2013 to 2018. These include ice
gouge surveys, strudel scours surveys, and other bathymetric surveys
(e.g., platform and pipeline surveys). These surveys use the same types
of remote sensing geophysical equipment used in shallow hazards
[[Page 1947]]
surveys, but they are conducted for different purposes in different
areas and often lack a seismic (airgun) component. Each of these types
of surveys is briefly described below.
Ice Gouge Surveys
Ice gouging is the creation of troughs and ridges on the seafloor
caused by the contact of the keels of moving ice floes with
unconsolidated sediments on the seafloor. Oil and gas operators conduct
these surveys to gain an understanding of the distribution, frequency,
size, and orientation of ice gouging in their areas of interest in
order to predict the location, size, and frequency of future ice
gouging. The surveys may be conducted from June through October when
the area is sufficiently clear of ice and weather permits. Equipment to
be used in ice gouge surveys during this time may include, but may not
be limited to, sub-bottom profilers, multi-beam bathymetric sonar, and
side scan sonar.
Strudel Scour Surveys
Strudel scours are formed in the seafloor during a brief period in
the spring when river discharge commences the breakup of the sea ice.
The ice is bottom fast, with the river discharge flowing over the top
of the ice. The overflow spreads offshore and drains through the ice
sheet at tidal cracks, thermal cracks, stress cracks, and seal
breathing holes reaching the seafloor with enough force to generate
distinctive erosion patterns. Oil and gas operators conduct surveys to
identify locations where this phenomenon occurs and to understand the
process. Nearshore areas (State waters) by the larger rivers are first
surveyed from the air with a helicopter at the time when rivers are
discharging on to the sea ice (typically in May), to identify any
locations where the discharge is moving through the ice. The identified
areas are revisited by vessel during the open water season (typically
July to October), and bathymetric surveys are conducted along a series
of transects over the identified areas. Equipment to be used in the
surveys in 2013 to 2018 would likely include, but may not be limited
to, multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side scan sonar, and single beam
bathymetric sonar.
Bathymetry Surveys
Some surveys would be conducted to determine the feasibility of
future development. This effort would include siting such things as
pipeline and platform surveys. These surveys use geophysical equipment
to delineate the bathymetry/seafloor relief and characteristics of the
surficial seafloor sediments. The surveys are conducted from vessels
along a series of transects. Equipment deployed on the vessel for these
surveys would likely include, but may not be limited to, sub-bottom
profilers, multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side scan sonar, and
magnetometers.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate
that up to two operators would conduct as many as two geophysical
surveys, including ice gouge, strudel scour, and bathymetry surveys, in
any given year during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations
(2013 to 2018).
Geotechnical Surveys
Geotechnical surveys expected to occur within the Chukchi Sea
Region would take place offshore on leases in federal waters of the OCS
and adjacent onshore areas. Geotechnical site investigations are
performed to collect detailed data about seafloor sediments, onshore
soil, and shallow geologic structures. During site investigations,
boreholes are drilled to depths sufficient to characterize the soils
within the zone of influence. The borings, cores, or cone penetrometer
data collected at the site define the stratigraphy and geotechnical
properties at that specific location. These data are analyzed and used
in determining optimal facility locations. Site investigations that
include archaeological, biological, and ecological data assist in the
development of foundation design criteria for any planned structure.
Methodology for geotechnical surveys may vary between those conducted
offshore and onshore. Onshore geotechnical surveys would likely be
conducted in winter when the tundra is frozen. Rotary drilling
equipment would be wheeled, tracked, or sled mounted. Offshore
geotechnical studies would be conducted from dedicated vessels or
support vessels associated with other operations such as drilling.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate
that as many as two operators would conduct up to two geotechnical
surveys in any given year during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed
regulations (2013 to 2018).
Offshore Environmental Studies
Offshore environmental studies are likely to include: Ecological
surveys of the benthos, plankton, fish, bird, and marine mammal
communities and use of Chukchi Sea waters; acoustical studies of marine
mammals; sediment and water quality analysis; and physical
oceanographic investigations of sea ice movement, currents, and
meteorology. Most bird and marine mammal surveys would be conducted
from vessels. The vessels would travel along series of transects at
slow speeds while observers on the vessels identify the number and
species of animals. Ecological sampling and marine mammal surveys would
also be conducted from fixed wing aircraft as part of the mandatory
marine mammal monitoring programs associated with seismic surveys and
exploration drilling. Various types of buoys would likely be deployed
in the Chukchi Sea for data collection.
Onshore Environmental Studies
Various types of environmental studies would likely be conducted
onshore in the Chukchi Sea Region in 2013 to 2018, in support of
offshore oil and gas exploration. These could include, but may not be
limited to, hydrology studies; habitat assessments; fish and wildlife
surveys; and archaeological resource surveys. These studies would
generally be conducted by small teams of scientists that would base
their operations in Chukchi Sea communities and travel to study sites
by helicopter. Most surveys would be conducted on foot or from the air.
Small boats may be used for hydrology studies, fish surveys, and other
studies in aquatic environments.
During the last 5-year time period of the regulations (2008-2012),
a total of six environmental studies were conducted, with one to two
conducted per year. Based upon information provided by the petitioners,
we estimate that as many as two environmental studies may be conducted
in any given year during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed
regulations (2013 to 2018).
Additional Onshore Activities
Additional onshore activities may occur as well. The North Slope
Borough (NSB) operates the Barrow Gas Fields located south and east of
the city of Barrow. The Barrow Gas Fields include the Walakpa, South,
and East Gas Fields. The East Barrow Gas Field is accessible via
exiting gravel roads. The Walakpa Gas Field operation is currently
accessed by helicopter and/or a rolligon trail. The South Gas Field is
accessible by gravel road or dirt trail depending on the individual
well. Access to this field during the winter would require ice road
construction. Ice/snow road access and ice pads are proposed where
needed. The Walakpa Gas Field and a portion of the South Gas Field are
located within the boundaries of the Chukchi Sea geographical region.
In 2007, ConocoPhillips conducted an exploration program south of
Barrow near the Walakpa Gas Field. The NSB
[[Page 1948]]
conducted drilling activities in 2007, including drilling new gas
wells, and plugged and abandoned depleted wells in the Barrow Gas
Fields. During the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations (2013
to 2018), we expect the NSB to maintain an active presence in the gas
fields with the potential for additional maintenance of the fields.
Biological Information
Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)
The Pacific walrus is the largest pinniped species (aquatic
carnivorous mammals with all four limbs modified into flippers) in the
Arctic. Walruses are readily distinguished from other Arctic pinnipeds
by their enlarged upper canine teeth, which form prominent tusks.
Males, which have relatively larger tusks than females, also tend to
have broader skulls (Fay 1982).
Two modern subspecies of walruses are generally recognized
(Wozencraft 2005, p. 525; Integrated Taxonomic Information System,
2010): The Atlantic walrus (O. r. rosmarus), which ranges from the
central Canadian Arctic eastward to the Kara Sea (Reeves 1978) and the
Pacific walrus (O. r. divergens), which ranges across the Bering and
Chukchi seas (Fay 1982). The small, geographically isolated population
of walruses in the Laptev Sea (Heptner et al. 1976; Vishnevskaia and
Bychkov 1990; Andersen et al. 1998; Wozencraft 2005; Jefferson et al.
2008), which was previously known as the Laptev walrus (Lindqvist et
al. 2009), is now considered part of the Pacific walrus population.
Atlantic and Pacific walruses are genetically and morphologically
distinct from each other (Cronin et al. 1994), likely because of range
fragmentation and differentiation during glacial phases of extensive
Arctic sea ice cover (Harington 2008).
Stock Definition, Range, and Abundance
Pacific walrus are represented by a single stock of animals that
inhabit the shallow continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi
seas (Sease and Chapman 1988). Though some heterogeneity in the
populations has been documented by Jay et al. (2008) from differences
in the ratio of trace elements in the teeth, Scribner et al. (1997)
found no difference in mitochondrial or nuclear DNA among Pacific
walruses sampled from different breeding areas. The population ranges
across the international boundaries of the United States and Russian
Federation, and both nations share common interests with respect to the
conservation and management of this species. Pacific walruses are
identified and managed in the United States and the Russian Federation
as a single population (Service 2010).
Pacific walruses range across the continental shelf waters of the
northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea, relying principally on broken pack
ice habitat to access feeding areas of high benthic productivity (Fay
1982). Pacific walruses migrate up to 1,500 km (932 mi) between summer
foraging areas in the Arctic (primarily the offshore continental shelf
of the Chukchi Sea) and highly productive, seasonally ice covered
waters in the sub-Arctic (northern Bering Sea) in winter. Although many
adult male Pacific walruses remain in the Bering Sea during the ice
free season, where they forage from coastal haulouts, most of the
population migrates north in summer and south in winter following
seasonal patterns of ice advance and retreat. Walruses are rarely
spotted south of the Aleutian archipelago; however, migrant animals
(mostly males) are occasionally reported in the North Pacific. Pacific
walruses are presently identified and managed as a single panmictic
population (Service 2010, unpublished data).
Fossil evidence suggests that walruses occurred in the northwest
Pacific during the last glacial maximum (20,000 YBP) with specimens
recovered as far south as northern California (Gingras et al. 2007;
Harrington 2008). More recently, commercial harvest records indicate
that Pacific walruses were hunted along the southern coast of the
Russian Federation in the Sea of Okhotsk and near Unimak Pass (Aleutian
Islands) and the Shumigan Islands (Alaska Peninsula) of Alaska during
the 17th Century (Elliott 1882).
Pacific walruses are highly mobile, and their distribution varies
markedly in response to seasonal and annual variations in sea ice
cover. During the January to March breeding season, walruses congregate
in the Bering Sea pack ice in areas where open leads (fractures in sea
ice caused by wind drift or ocean currents), polynyas (enclosed areas
of unfrozen water surrounded by ice) or thin ice allow access to water
(Fay 1982; Fay et al. 1984). The specific location of winter breeding
aggregations varies annually depending upon the distribution and extent
of ice. Breeding aggregations have been reported southwest of St.
Lawrence Island, Alaska; south of Nunivak Island, Alaska; and south of
the Chukotka Peninsula in the Gulf of Anadyr, Russian Federation (Fay
1982; Mymrin et al. 1990; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
In spring, as the Bering Sea pack ice deteriorates, most of the
population migrates northward through the Bering Strait to summer
feeding areas over the continental shelf in the Chukchi Sea. However,
several thousand animals, primarily adult males, remain in the Bering
Sea during the summer months, foraging from coastal haulouts in the
Gulf of Anadyr, Russian Federation, and in Bristol Bay, Alaska (Figure
1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
Summer distributions (both males and females) in the Chukchi Sea
vary annually, depending upon the extent of sea ice. When broken sea
ice is abundant, walruses are typically found in patchy aggregations
over continental shelf waters. Individual groups may range from fewer
than 10 to more than 1,000 animals (Gilbert 1999; Ray et al. 2006).
Summer concentrations have been reported in loose pack ice off the
northwestern coast of Alaska, between Icy Cape and Point Barrow, and
along the coast of Chukotka, Russian Federation, and Wrangel Island
(Fay 1982; Gilbert et al. 1992; Belikov et al. 1996). In years of low
ice concentrations in the Chukchi Sea, some animals range east of Point
Barrow into the Beaufort Sea; walruses have also been observed in the
Eastern Siberian Sea in late summer (Fay 1982; Belikov et al. 1996).
The pack ice of the Chukchi Sea usually reaches its minimum extent in
September. In years when the sea ice retreats north beyond the
continental shelf, walruses congregate in large numbers (up to several
tens of thousands of animals in some locations) at terrestrial haulouts
on Wrangel Island and other sites along the northern coast of the
Chukotka Peninsula, Russian Federation, and northwestern Alaska (Fay
1982; Belikov et al. 1996; Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007; Kavry
et al. 2008; MacCracken 2012).
In late September and October, walruses that summered in the
Chukchi Sea typically begin moving south in advance of the developing
sea ice. Satellite telemetry data indicate that male walruses that
summered at coastal haulouts in the Bering Sea also begin to move
northward towards winter breeding areas in November (Jay and Hills
2005). The male walruses' northward movement appears to be driven
primarily by the presence of females at that time of year (Freitas et
al. 2009).
Distribution in the Chukchi Sea
During the summer months, walruses are widely distributed across
the shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea. Significant
summer concentrations include near Wrangel
[[Page 1949]]
and Herald Islands in Russian waters and at Hanna Shoal (northwest of
Point Barrow) in U.S. waters (Jay et al. 2012). As the ice edge
advances southward in the fall, walruses reverse their migration and
re-group on the Bering Sea pack ice.
The distribution of walruses in the eastern Chukchi Sea where
exploration activities would occur is influenced primarily by the
distribution and extent of seasonal pack ice. In June and July,
scattered groups of walruses are typically found in loose pack ice
habitats between Icy Cape and Point Barrow (Fay 1982; Gilbert et al.
1992). Recent telemetry studies investigating foraging patterns in the
eastern Chukchi Sea suggest that many walruses focus foraging efforts
near Hanna Shoal, northwest of Point Barrow (Jay et al. in press). In
August and September, concentrations of animals tend to be in areas of
unconsolidated pack ice, usually within 100 km of the leading edge of
the ice pack (Gilbert 1999). Individual groups occupying unconsolidated
pack ice typically range from fewer than 10 to more than 1,000 animals.
(Gilbert 1999; Ray et al. 2006). In August and September, the edge of
the pack ice generally retreats northward to about 71[deg] N latitude;
however in light ice years, the edge can retreat north beyond the
continental shelf (Douglas 2010). Sea ice normally reaches its minimum
(northern) extent sometime in September, and ice begins to reform
rapidly in October and November. Walruses typically migrate out of the
eastern Chukchi Sea in October in advance of the developing sea ice
(Fay 1982l; Jay et al. in press).
Population Status
The size of the Pacific walrus population has never been known with
certainty. Based on large sustained harvests in the 18th and 19th
centuries, Fay (1982) speculated that the pre-exploitation population
was represented by a minimum of 200,000 animals. Since that time,
population size is believed to have fluctuated in response to varying
levels of human exploitation. Large scale commercial harvests are
believed to have reduced the population to 50,000 to 100,000 animals by
the mid-1950s (Fay et al. 1997). The population apparently increased
rapidly in size during the 1960s and 1970s in response to harvest
regulations that limited the take of females (Fay et al. 1989). Between
1975 and 1990, visual aerial surveys jointly conducted by the United
States and Soviet Union at 5-year intervals produced population
estimates ranging from 201,039 to 246,360 (Table 1). Efforts to survey
the Pacific walrus population were suspended by both countries after
1990, due to unresolved problems with survey methods that produced
population estimates with unknown bias and unknown, but presumably
large, variances that severely limited their utility (Speckman et al.
2012).
In 2006, a joint United States-Russian Federation survey was
conducted in the pack ice of the Bering Sea, using thermal imaging
systems to detect walruses hauled out on sea ice and satellite
transmitters to account for walruses in the water (Speckman et al.
2012). The number of walruses within the surveyed area was estimated at
129,000, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 55,000 to 507,000
individuals. This is a conservative minimum estimate, as weather
conditions forced termination of the survey before much of the
southwest Bering Sea was surveyed; animals were observed in that region
as the surveyors returned to Anchorage, Alaska. Table 1 provides a
summary of survey results.
Table 1--Estimates of Pacific Walrus Population Size, 1975 to 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population size \a\
Year (95% confidence Reference
interval)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975.......................... 214,687 (-20,000 to Udevitz et al.
480,000) \b\. 2001.
1980.......................... 246,360 (-20,000 to Johnson et al.
540,000). 1982; Fedoseev
1984.
1985.......................... 242,366 (-20,000 to Udevitz et al.
510,000). 2001.
1990.......................... 201,039 (-19,000 to Gilbert et al.
460,000). 1992.
2006.......................... 129,000 (55,000 to Speckman et al.
507,000). 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ due to differences in methods, comparisons of estimates across years
(population trends) are subject to several caveats and not reliable.
\b\ 95 percent confidence intervals for 1975 to 1990 are from Fig. 1 in
Hills and Gilbert (1994).
These survey results suggest that the walrus population has
declined; however, discrepancies among the survey methods and large
confidence intervals that in some cases overlap zero do not support
such a definitive conclusion. Resource managers in the Russian
Federation have concluded that the population has declined and have
reduced harvest quotas in recent years accordingly (Kochnev 2004;
Kochnev 2005; Kochnev 2010, pers. comm.), based in part on the lower
abundance estimate generated from the 2006 survey. However, past survey
results are not directly comparable due to differences in survey
methods, timing of surveys, segments of the population surveyed, and
incomplete coverage of areas where walruses may have been present (Fay
et al. 1997); thus, these results do not provide a basis for
determining trends in population size (Hills and Gilbert 1994; Gilbert
1999). Whether prior estimates are biased low or high is unknown,
because of problems with detecting individual animals on ice or land,
and in open water, and difficulties counting animals in large, dense
groups (Speckman et al. 2011). In addition, no survey has ever been
completed within a time frame that could account for the redistribution
of individuals (leading to double counting or undercounting), or before
weather conditions either delayed the effort or completely terminated
the survey before the entire area of potentially occupied habitat had
been covered (Speckman et al. 2011). Due to these problems, as well as
seasonal differences among surveys (fall or spring) and despite
technological advancements that correct for some problems, we do not
believe the survey results provide a reliable basis for estimating a
population trend.
Changes in the walrus population have also been investigated by
examining changes in biological parameters over time. Based on evidence
of changes in abundance, distributions, condition indices, pregnancy
rates, and minimum breeding age, Fay et al. (1989) and Fay et al.
(1997) concluded that the Pacific walrus population increased greatly
in size during the 1960s and 1970s, and postulated that the population
was near, or had exceeded, the carrying capacity (K) of its environment
by the early 1980s. We would expect the population to decline if K is
exceeded. In addition, harvests increased in the 1980s. Changes in the
size, composition, and productivity of the sampled walrus harvest in
the Bering Strait Region of
[[Page 1950]]
Alaska over this time frame are consistent with this hypothesis
(Garlich-Miller et al. 2006; MacCracken 2012). Harvest levels declined
sharply in the early 1990s, and increased reproductive rates and
earlier maturation in females occurred, suggesting that density
dependent regulatory mechanisms had been relaxed and the population was
likely below K (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006; MacCracken 2012). However,
Garlich-Miller et al. (2006) also noted that there are no data
concerning the trend in abundance of the walrus population or the
status of its prey to verify this hypothesis, and that whether density
dependent changes in life-history parameters might have been mediated
by changes in population abundance or changes in the carrying capacity
of the environment is unknown.
Habitat
The Pacific walrus is an ice-dependent species that relies on sea
ice for many aspects of its life history. Unlike other pinnipeds,
walruses are not adapted for a pelagic existence and must haul out on
ice or land regularly. Floating pack ice serves as a substrate for
resting between feeding dives (Ray et al. 2006), breeding behavior (Fay
et al. 1984), giving birth (Fay 1982), and nursing and care of young
(Kelly 2001). Sea ice provides access to offshore feeding areas over
the continental shelf of the Bering and Chukchi seas, passive
transportation to new feeding areas (Richard 1990; Ray et al. 2006),
and isolation from terrestrial predators (Richard 1990; Kochnev 2004;
Ovsyanikov et al. 2007). Sea ice provides an extensive substrate upon
which the risk of predation and hunting is greatly reduced (Kelly 2001;
Fay 1982).
Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is comprised of first year sea
ice that formed in the most recent autumn/winter period, and multi-year
ice that has survived at least one summer melt season. Sea ice habitats
for walruses include openings or leads that provide access to the water
and to food resources. Walruses generally do not use multi-year ice or
highly compacted first year ice in which there is an absence of
persistent leads or polynyas (Richard 1990). Expansive areas of heavy
ice cover are thought to play a restrictive role in walrus
distributions across the Arctic and serve as a barrier to the mixing of
populations (Fay 1982; Dyke et al. 1999; Harington 2008). Walruses
generally do not occur farther south than the maximum extent of the
winter pack ice, possibly due to their reliance on sea ice for breeding
and rearing young (Fay et al. 1984) and isolation from terrestrial
predators (Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007), or because of the
higher densities of benthic invertebrates in northern waters (Grebmeier
et al. 2006a).
Walruses may utilize ice that is greater than 20 cm (~8 in), but
generally require ice thicknesses of 50 cm (~20 in) or more to support
their weight, and are not found in areas of extensive, unbroken ice
(Fay 1982; Richard 1990). Thus, in winter they concentrate in areas of
broken pack ice associated with divergent ice flow or along the margins
of persistent polynyas (Burns et al. 1981; Fay et al. 1984; Richard
1990) in areas with abundant food resources (Ray et al. 2006). Females
with young generally spend the summer months in pack ice habitats of
the Chukchi Sea. Some authors have suggested that the size and
topography of individual ice floes are important features in the
selection of ice haulouts, noting that some animals have been observed
returning to the same ice floe between feeding bouts (Ray et al. 2006).
Conversely, walruses can and will exploit a broad range of ice types
and ice concentrations in order to stay in preferred foraging or
breeding areas (Freitas et al. 2009; Jay et al. 2010a; Ray et al.
2010). Walruses tend to make shorter foraging excursions when they are
using sea ice rather than land haulouts (Udevitz et al. 2009),
suggesting that it is more energetically efficient for them to haulout
on ice than forage from shore. Fay (1982) notes that several authors
reported that when walruses had the choice of ice or land for a resting
place, ice was always selected. However, walrus occupancy of an area
can be somewhat independent of ice conditions. Many walruses will stay
over productive feeding areas even to the point when the ice completely
melts out. It appears that adult females and younger animals can remain
at sea for a week or two before coming to shore to rest.
When suitable sea ice is not available, walruses haul out on land
to rest. A wide variety of substrates, ranging from sand to boulders,
are used. Isolated islands, points, spits, and headlands are occupied
most frequently. The primary consideration for a terrestrial haulout
site appears to be isolation from disturbances and predators, although
social factors, learned behavior, protection from strong winds and
surf, and proximity to food resources also likely influence the choice
of terrestrial haulout sites (Richard 1990). Walruses tend to use
established haulout sites repeatedly and exhibit some degree of
fidelity to these sites (Jay and Hills 2005), although the use of
coastal haulouts appears to fluctuate over time, possibly due to
localized prey depletion (Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000). Human
disturbance is also thought to influence the choice of haulout sites;
many historic haulouts in the Bering Sea were abandoned in the early
1900s when the Pacific walrus population was subjected to high levels
of exploitation (Fay 1982; Fay et al. 1984).
Adult male walruses use land-based haulouts more than females or
young, and consequently, have a greater geographical distribution
through the ice-free season. Many adult males remain in the Bering Sea
throughout the ice-free season, making foraging trips from coastal
haulouts in Bristol Bay, Alaska, and the Gulf of Anadyr, Russian
Federation (Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a), while females and
juvenile animals generally stay with the drifting ice pack throughout
the year (Fay 1982). Females with dependent young may prefer sea ice
habitats because coastal haulouts pose greater risk from trampling
injuries and predation (Fay and Kelly 1980; Ovsyanikov et al. 1994;
Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007; Kavry et al. 2008; Mulcahy et al.
2009). Females may also prefer sea ice habitats because they may have
difficulty feeding while caring for a young calf that has limited
swimming range (Cooper et al. 2006; Jay and Fischbach 2008).
The numbers of male walruses using coastal haulouts in the Bering
Sea during the summer months, and the relative uses of different
coastal haulout sites in the Bering Sea, have varied over the past
century. Harvest records indicate that walrus herds were once common at
coastal haulouts along the Alaska Peninsula and the islands of northern
Bristol Bay (Fay et al. 1984). By the early 1950s, most of the
traditional haulout areas in the Southern Bering Sea had been
abandoned, presumably due to hunting pressure. During the 1950s and
1960s, Round Island was the only regularly used haulout in Bristol Bay,
Alaska. In 1960, the State of Alaska established the Walrus Islands
State Game Sanctuary, which closed Round Island to hunting. Peak counts
of walruses at Round Island increased from 1,000 to 2,000 animals in
the late 1950s (Frost et al. 1983) to more than 10,000 animals in the
early 1980s (Sell and Weiss 2010), but subsequently declined to 2,000
to 5,000 over the past decade (Sell and Weiss 2010). General
observations indicate that declining walrus counts at Round Island may,
in part, reflect a redistribution of animals to other coastal sites in
the Bristol Bay region. For example, walruses have been
[[Page 1951]]
observed increasingly regularly at the Cape Seniavin haulout on the
Alaska Peninsula since the 1970s, and at Cape Pierce and Cape Newenham
in northwest Bristol Bay since the early 1980s (Jay and Hills 2005;
Winfree 2010; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a), and more
recently at Hagemeister Island.
Traditional male summer haulouts along the Bering Sea coast of the
Russian Federation include sites along the Kamchatka Peninsula, the
Gulf of Anadyr (most notably Rudder and Meechkin spits), and
Arakamchechen Island (Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000; Figure 1 in Garlich-
Miller et al. 2011a). Walruses have not occupied several of the
southernmost haulouts along the coast of Kamchatka in recent years, and
the number of animals in the Gulf of Anadyr has also declined in recent
years (Kochnev 2005). Factors influencing abundance at Bering Sea
haulouts are poorly understood, but may include changes in prey
densities near the haulouts, changes in population size, disturbance
levels, and changing seasonal distributions (Jay and Hills 2005)
(presumably mediated by sea ice coverage or temperature).
Historically, coastal haulouts along the Arctic (Chukchi Sea) coast
have been used less consistently during the summer months than those in
the Bering Sea because of the presence of pack ice for much of the year
in the Chukchi Sea. Since the mid-1990s, reductions of summer sea ice
coincided with a marked increase in the use of coastal haulouts along
the Chukchi Sea coast of the Russian Federation during the summer
months (Kochnev 2004; Kavry et al. 2008). Large, mixed (composed of
various age and sex groups) herds of walruses, up to several tens of
thousands of animals, began to use coastal haulouts on Wrangel Island,
Russian Federation, in the early 1990s, and several coastal haulouts
along the northern Chukotka coastline of the Russian Federation have
emerged in recent years, likely as a result of reductions in summer sea
ice in the Chukchi Sea (Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007; Kavry et
al. 2008; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
In 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011, walruses were also observed hauling
out in large numbers with mixed sex and age groups along the Chukchi
Sea coast of Alaska in late August, September, and October (Thomas et
al. 2009; Service 2010, unpublished data; Garlich-Miller et al. 2011b;
MacCracken 2012). Monitoring studies conducted in association with oil
and gas exploration suggest that the use of coastal haulouts along the
Arctic coast of Alaska during the summer months is dependent upon the
availability of sea ice. For example, in 2006 and 2008, walruses
foraging off the Chukchi Sea coast of Alaska remained with the ice pack
over the continental shelf during the months of August, September, and
October. However in 2007 and 2009, the pack ice retreated beyond the
continental shelf and large numbers of walruses hauled out on land at
several locations between Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne, Alaska
(Ireland et al. 2009; Thomas et al. 2009; Service 2010, unpublished
data; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a), and in 2010 and 2011,
at least 20,000 to 30,000 walruses were observed hauled out
approximately 4.8 km (3 miles[mi]) north of the Native Village of Point
Lay, Alaska (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011b).
Transitory coastal haulouts have also been reported in late fall
(October to November) along the southern Chukchi Sea coast, coinciding
with the southern migration. Mixed herds of walruses frequently come to
shore to rest for a few days to weeks along the coast before continuing
on their migration to the Bering Sea. Cape Lisburne, Alaska, and Capes
Serdtse-Kamen' and Dezhnev, Russian Federation, are the most
consistently used haulouts in the Chukchi Sea at this time of year
(Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000). Large mixed herds of walruses have also
been reported in late fall and early winter at coastal haulouts in the
northern Bering Sea at the Punuk Islands and Saint Lawrence Island,
Alaska; Big Diomede Island, Russian Federation; and King Island,
Alaska, prior to the formation of sea ice in offshore breeding and
feeding areas (Fay and Kelly 1980; Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000; Figure
1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
Life History
Walruses are long-lived animals with low rates of reproduction,
much lower than other pinniped species. Walruses may live 35 to 40
years and some may remain reproductively active until relatively late
in life (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). Females give birth to one calf
every 2 or more years. 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 (Fay et al. 1984).
At birth, walrus calves are approximately 65 kg (143 lb) and 113 cm
(44.5 in) long (Fay 1982). Calves are capable of entering the water
shortly after birth, but tend to haulout frequently, until their
swimming ability and blubber layer are well developed. Females tend
newborn calves closely and accompany their mother from birth until
weaned after 2 years or more. Cows brood neonates to aid in their
thermoregulation (Fay and Ray 1968), and carry them on their back or
under their flipper while in the water (Gehnrich 1984). Females with
newborns often join to form large ``nursery herds'' (Burns 1970).
Summer distribution of females and young walruses is related to the
movements of the pack ice relative to feeding areas.
After the first 7 years of life, the growth rate of female walruses
declines rapidly, and they reach a maximum body size by approximately
10 years of age. Females reach sexual maturity at 4 to 9 years of age.
Adult females can reach lengths of up to 3 m (9.8 ft) and weigh up to
1,100 kg (2,425 lb). Male walrus tend to grow faster and for a longer
period than females. Males become fertile at 5 to 7 years of age;
however, they are usually unable to compete for mates until they reach
full adult body size at 15 to 16 years of age. Adult males can reach
lengths of 3.5 m (11.5 ft) and can weigh more than 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)
(Fay 1982).
Behavior
Walruses are social and gregarious animals. They tend to travel in
groups and haul out of the water to rest on ice or land in densely
packed groups. On land or ice, in any season, walruses tend to lie in
close physical contact with each other. Young animals often lie on top
of adults. Group size can range from a few individuals up to several
thousand animals (Gilbert 1999; Kastelein 2002; Jefferson et al. 2008).
At any time of the year, when groups are disturbed, stampedes from a
haulout can result in injuries and mortalities. Calves and young
animals are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries (Fay 1980;
Fay and Kelly 1980). The reaction of walruses to disturbance ranges
from no reaction to escape into the water, depending on the
circumstances (Fay et al. 1984). Many factors play into the severity of
the response, including the age and sex of the animals, the size and
location of the group (on ice, in water, Fay et al. 1984). Females with
calves appear to be most sensitive to disturbance, and animals on shore
are more sensitive than those on ice (Fay et al. 1984). A fright
response caused by disturbance can cause stampedes on a haulout,
resulting in injuries and mortalities (Fay and Kelly 1980).
Mating occurs primarily in January and February in broken pack ice
habitat
[[Page 1952]]
in the Bering Sea. Breeding bulls follow herds of females and compete
for access to groups of females hauled out onto sea ice. Males perform
visual and acoustical displays in the water to attract females and
defend a breeding territory. Sub-dominant males remain on the periphery
of these aggregations and apparently do not display. Intruders into
display areas are met with threat displays and physical attacks.
Individual females leave the resting herd to join a male in the water
where copulation occurs (Fay et al. 1984; Sjare and Stirling 1996).
The social bond between the mother and calf is very strong, and it
is unusual for a cow to become separated from her calf (Fay 1982). The
calf normally remains with its mother for at least 2 years, sometimes
longer, if not supplanted by a new calf (Fay 1982). After separation
from their mother, young females tend to remain with groups of adult
females, whereas young males gradually separate from the females and
begin to associate with groups of other males. Walruses appear to base
their individual social status on a combination of body size, tusk
size, and aggressiveness. Individuals do not necessarily associate with
the same group of animals and must continually reaffirm their social
status in each new aggregation (Fay 1982; NAMMCO 2004).
Walruses produce a variety of sounds (barks, knocks, grunts, rasps,
clicks, whistles, contact calls, etc.; Miller 1985; Stirling et al.
1987), which range in frequency from 0.1 to 4000 Hz (Miller 1985;
Richardson et al. 1995). Airborne vocalizations accompany nearly every
social interaction that occurs on land or ice (Miller 1985; Charrier et
al. 2011) and facilitate kin recognition, male breeding displays,
recognition of conspecifics, and female mate choice (Insley et al.
2003; Charrier et al. 2011). Miller (1985) indicated that barks and
other calls were used to promote group cohesion and prompted herd
members to attend to young distressed animals. Walruses also vocalize
extensively while underwater, which has been used to track movements,
study behavior, and infer relative abundance (Stirling et al. 1983;
Hannay et al. 2012, Mouy et al. 2012). The purposes of underwater
vocalizations are not explicitly known but are associated with breeding
(Ray and Watkins 1975; Stirling et al. 1987; Sjare et al. 2003),
swimming, and diving (Hannay et al. 2012). Stirling et al. (1987)
suggested that variation among individuals in stereotyped underwater
calls may be used to identify individuals. Mouy et al. (2012) opined
that knocks made while diving may be used to locate the bottom and
identify bottom substrates associated with prey. Underwater
vocalizations may also be used to communicate with other walruses.
Because of walrus grouping behavior, all vocal communications occur
within a short distance (Miller 1985). Walrus' underwater vocalizations
can be detected for only a few kilometers (Mouy et al. 2012) and likely
do not act as long distance communication.
Prey
Walruses consume mostly benthic (region at the bottom of a body of
water) invertebrates and are highly adapted to obtain bivalves (Fay
1982; Bowen and Siniff 1999; Born et al. 2003; Dehn et al. 2007; Boveng
et al. 2008; Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009). Fish and other vertebrates
have occasionally been found in their stomachs (Fay 1982; Sheffield and
Grebmeier 2009). Walruses root in the bottom sediment with their
muzzles and use their whiskers to locate prey items. They use their
fore flippers, nose, and jets of water to extract prey buried up to 32
cm (12.6 in) (Fay 1982; Oliver et al. 1983; Kastelein 2002; Levermann
et al. 2003). The foraging behavior of walruses is thought to have a
major impact on benthic communities in the Bering and Chukchi seas
(Oliver et al. 1983; Klaus et al. 1990). Ray et al. (2006) estimate
that walruses consume approximately 3 million metric tons (3,307 tons)
of benthic biomass annually, and that the area affected by walrus
foraging is in the order of thousands of square (sq) km (thousands of
sq mi) annually. Consequently, walruses play a major role in benthic
ecosystem structure and function, which Ray et al. (2006) suggested
increased nutrient flux and productivity.
The earliest studies of food habits were based on examination of
stomachs from walruses killed by hunters. These reports indicated that
walruses were primarily feeding on bivalves (clams), and that non-
bivalve prey was only incidentally ingested (Fay 1982; Sheffield et al.
2001). However, these early studies did not take into account the
differential rate of digestion of prey items (Sheffield et al. 2001).
Additional research indicates that stomach contents include over 100
taxa of benthic invertebrates from all major phyla (Fay 1982; Sheffield
and Grebmeier 2009), and while bivalves remain the primary component,
walruses are not adapted to a diet solely of clams. Other prey items
have similar energetic benefits (Wacasey and Atkinson 1987). Based on
analysis of the contents from fresh stomachs of Pacific walruses
collected between 1975 and 1985 in the Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea, prey
consumption likely reflects benthic invertebrate composition (Sheffield
and Grebmeier 2009). Of the large number of different types of prey,
statistically significant differences between males and females from
the Bering Sea were found in the occurrence of only two prey items, and
there were no statistically significant differences in results for
males and females from the Chukchi Sea (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009).
Although these data are for Pacific walrus stomachs collected 25 to 35
years ago, we have no reason to believe there has been a change in the
general pattern of prey use described here.
Walruses typically swallow invertebrates without shells in their
entirety (Fay 1982). Walruses remove the soft parts of mollusks from
their shells by suction, and discard the shells (Fay 1982). Born et al.
(2003) reported that Atlantic walruses consumed an average of 53.2
bivalves (range 34 to 89) per dive. Based on caloric need and
observations of captive walruses, walruses require approximately 29 to
74 kg (64 to 174 lbs) of food per day (Fay 1982). Adult males forage
little during the breeding period (Fay 1982; Ray et al. 2006), while
lactating females may eat two to three times that of non-pregnant, non-
lactating females (Fay 1982). Calves up to 1 year of age depend
primarily on their mother's milk (Fay 1982) and are gradually weaned in
their second year (Fisher and Stewart 1997).
Although walruses are capable of diving to depths of more than 250
m (820 ft) (Born et al.), they usually forage in waters of 80 m (262
ft) or less (Fay and Burns 1988, Born et al. 2003; Kovacs and Lydersen
2008), presumably because of higher productivity of their benthic foods
in shallow waters (Fay and Burns 1988; Carey 1991; Jay et al. 2001;
Grebmeier et al. 2006b; Grebmeier et al. 2006a). Walruses make foraging
trips from land or ice haulouts that range from a few hours up to
several days and up to 100 km (60 mi) (Jay et al. 2001; Born et al.
2003; Ray et al. 2006; Udevitz et al. 2009). Walruses tend to make
shorter and more frequent foraging trips when sea ice is used as a
foraging platform compared to terrestrial haulouts (Udevitz et al.
2009). Satellite telemetry data for walruses in the Bering Sea in April
of 2004, 2005, and 2006 showed they spent an average of 46 hours in the
water between resting bouts on ice, which averaged 9 hours (Udevitz et
al. 2009). Because females and young travel with the retreating pack
ice in the spring and summer, they are passively transported northward
over feeding grounds across the continental shelves of the Bering and
Chukchi seas. Male
[[Page 1953]]
walruses appear to have greater endurance than females, with foraging
excursions from land haulouts that can last up to 142 hours (about 6
days) (Jay et al. 2001).
Mortality
Polar bears are known to prey on walrus calves, and killer whales
(Orcinus orca) have been known to take all age classes of walruses.
Predation levels are thought to be highest near terrestrial haulout
sites where large aggregations of walruses can be found; however, few
observations exist for offshore environs. Pacific walruses have been
hunted by coastal Natives in Alaska and Chukotka for thousands of
years. Exploitation of the Pacific walrus population by Europeans has
also occurred in varying degrees since the late 17th century. Currently
only Native Alaskans and Chukotkans can hunt Pacific walruses to meet
subsistence needs. The Service, in partnership with the Eskimo Walrus
Commission (EWC) and the Association of Traditional Marine Mammal
Hunters of Chukotka, administered subsistence harvest monitoring
programs in Alaska and Chukotka in 2000 to 2005. Harvests from 2006-
2010 averaged 4,854 walruses per year (Service, unpubl. data). These
mortality estimates include corrections for under-reported harvest and
struck and lost animals.
Intra-specific trauma is also a known source of injury and
mortality. Disturbance events can cause walruses to stampede into the
water and have been known to result in hundreds to thousands of
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.
Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus)
Stock Definition and Range
Polar bears are circumpolar in their distribution in the northern
hemisphere. In Alaska, polar bears have historically been observed as
far south in the Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island and the Pribilof
Islands (Ray 1971). Two subpopulations, or stocks, occur in Alaska: The
Chukchi/Bering seas stock (CS), and the Southern Beaufort Sea stock
(SBS). This proposed rule primarily discusses the CS stock. A detailed
description of the CS and SBS polar bear stocks can be found in the
Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Stock Assessment Reports at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_sbs_polar_bear_sar.pdf and
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_cbs_polar_bear_sar.pdf. A summary of the CS polar bear stock is described below.
The CS stock is widely distributed on the pack ice in the Chukchi
Sea and northern Bering Sea and adjacent coastal areas in Alaska,
United States and Chukotka, Russian Federation. The northeastern
boundary of the Chukchi/Bering seas stock is near the Colville Delta in
the central Beaufort Sea (Garner et al.1990; Amstrup 1995; Amstrup et
al. 2005), and the western boundary is near Chauniskaya Bay in the
Eastern Siberian Sea. The stock's southern boundary is determined by
the extent of annual sea ice. It is important to note that the eastern
boundary of the CS stock constitutes a large overlap zone with bears in
the SBS stock (Amstrup et al. 2004). In this large overlap zone,
roughly north of Barrow, Alaska, it is thought that polar bears are
approximately 50 percent from the CS stock and 50 percent from the SBS
stock (Amstrup et al. 2004; Obbard et al. 2010). Currently, capture-
based studies are being conducted by the Service in the U.S. portion of
the Chukchi Sea to provide updated information on population
delineation and habitat use.
Distribution in the Chukchi Sea
Polar bears are common in the Chukchi Sea and their distribution is
influenced by the movement of the seasonal pack ice. Polar bears in the
Chukchi Sea migrate seasonally with the pack ice but are typically
dispersed throughout the region anywhere sea ice and prey may be found
(Garner et al. 1990; Amstrup 2003). The distance between the northern
and southern extremes of the seasonal pack ice in the Chukchi/Bearing
seas is approximately 1,300 km (~807 mi). There may be, however,
significant differences year to year. Sea ice throughout the Arctic is
changing rapidly and dramatically due to climate change (Douglas 2010).
In May and June, polar bears are likely to be encountered over
relatively shallow continental shelf waters associated with ice as they
move northward from the northern Bering Sea, through the Bering Strait
into the southern Chukchi Sea. During the fall and early winter period
polar bears are likely to be encountered in the Chukchi Sea during
their southward migration in late October and November. Polar bears are
dependent upon the sea ice for foraging, and the most productive areas
seem to be near the ice edge, leads, or polynyas where the ocean depth
is minimal (Durner et al. 2004). In addition, polar bears may be
present along the shoreline in this area, as they will
opportunistically scavenge on marine mammal carcasses washed up along
the shoreline (Kalxdorff and Fischbach 1998).
Population Status
The global population estimate of polar bears is approximately
20,000 to 25,000 individuals (Obbard et al. 2010). Polar bears
typically occur at low densities throughout their circumpolar range
(DeMaster and Stirling 1981). The CS stock likely increased after the
level of harvest in the United States was reduced subsequent to passage
of the MMPA in 1972; however, its status is now considered uncertain
(Obbard et al. 2010). Polar bears in the CS stock are classified as
depleted under the MMPA and listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). It has
been difficult to obtain a reliable population estimate for this stock
due to the vast and inaccessible nature of the habitat, movement of
bears across international boundaries, logistical constraints of
conducting studies in Russian Federation territory, and budget
limitations (Amstrup and DeMaster 1988; Garner et al. 1992; Garner et
al. 1998; Evans et al. 2003). The recent estimate of the CS stock is
approximately 2,000 animals, based on extrapolation of aerial den
surveys (Lunn et al. 2002). Past estimates of the stock have been
derived from observations of dens and aerial surveys (Chelintsev 1977;
Stishov 1991a; Stishov 1991b; Stishov et al. 1991); however, these
estimates have wide confidence intervals, are considered to be of
little value for management, and cannot be used to evaluate status and
trends for this stock. Reliable estimates of population size based upon
traditional wildlife research methods such as capture-recapture or
aerial surveys are not available for this region, and measuring the
population size remains a research challenge (Evans et al. 2003).
Current and new research studies in the United States and Russian
Federation are aimed at monitoring population status via ecological
indicators (e.g., recruitment rates and body condition) and reducing
uncertainty associated with estimates of survival and population size.
Habitat
Polar bears depend on the sea-ice-dominated ecosystem for survival.
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, feeding, and mating. Historically, polar
bears of the Chukchi Sea have spent most of their time on the
[[Page 1954]]
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 and
their use of habitat. 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. In addition, a small number of bears sometimes remains
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
unconsolidated, and segments move 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.
Changes in sea ice are occurring in the Chukchi Sea because of
climate change (Service 2010). With sea ice decreasing, scientists are
observing effects of climate change on polar bear habitat, such as an
increased amount of open water for longer periods; a reduction in the
stable, multi-year ice; and a retraction of sea ice away from
productive continental shelf areas (Service 2010). Polar bears using
the Chukchi Sea are currently experiencing the initial effects of
changes in the sea-ice conditions (Rode and Regehr et al. 2007) and
would be vulnerable to seasonal changes in sea ice that could limit
their access to prey.
As a measure to protect polar bears and their habitat from the
effects of climate change, the Service designated critical habitat for
polar bear populations in the United States effective January 6, 2011
(75 FR 76086; December 7, 2010). Critical habitat identifies geographic
areas that contain features essential for the conservation of an
endangered or threatened species, and that may require special
management or protection.
The Service designated critical habitat in three areas or units:
Barrier island habitat, sea ice habitat (both described in geographic
terms), and terrestrial denning habitat (a functional determination).
Barrier island habitat includes coastal barrier islands and spits along
Alaska's coast, and is used for denning, refuge from human disturbance,
access to maternal dens and feeding habitat, and travel along the
coast. Sea ice habitat is located over the continental shelf, and
includes water 300 m (~984 ft) or less in depth. Terrestrial denning
habitat includes lands within 32 km (~20 mi) of the northern coast of
Alaska between the Canadian border and the Kavik River, and within 8 km
(~5 mi) between the Kavik River and Barrow. The total area designated
covers approximately 484,734 sq km (~187,157 sq mi), and is entirely
within the lands and waters of the United States.
Polar bear habitat is described in detail in the final rule that
designated polar bear critical habitat (75 FR 76086; December 7, 2010).
A detailed description of polar bear habitat can be found at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/federal_register_notice.pdf.
Life History
Polar bears are specially adapted for life in the Arctic and are
distributed throughout most ice-covered seas of the circumpolar
Northern Hemisphere (Amstrup 2003). They are generally limited to areas
where the sea is ice-covered for much of the year; however, polar bears
are not evenly distributed throughout their range. They are most
abundant near the shore in shallow water areas, and in other areas
where currents and ocean upwelling increase marine productivity and
maintain some open water during the ice covered season (Stirling and
Smith 1975; Stirling et al. 1981; Amstrup and DeMaster 1988; Stirling
1990; Stirling and [Oslash]ritsland 1995; Stirling and Lunn 1997;
Amstrup et al. 2000; Amstrup 2003). Over most of their range, polar
bears remain on the sea ice year-round, or spend only short periods on
land (Amstrup 2003).
Denning and Reproduction
Female polar bears without dependent cubs breed in the spring.
Females can produce their first litter of cubs at 5 to 6 years of age
(Stirling et al. 1976; Stirling et al. 1977; Lentfer and Hensel 1980;
Lentfer et al. 1980; Ramsay and Stirling 1982, 1988; Furnell and
Schweinsburg 1984; Amstrup 2003). Pregnant females typically enter
maternity dens from November through December, and the young are
usually born in late December or early January (Lentfer and Hensel
1980; Amstrup 2003). Only pregnant females den for an extended period
during the winter; other polar bears may excavate temporary dens to
escape harsh winter conditions, but otherwise remain active year-round
(Amstrup 2003). Each pregnancy can result in up to three cubs, an
average pregnancy results in two cubs being born. The average
reproductive interval for a polar bear is 3 to 4 years, and a female
polar bear can produce about 8 to 10 cubs in her lifetime. In healthy
populations, 50 to 60 percent of the cubs may survive through their
first year of life after leaving the den (Amstrup 2003). In late March
or early April, the female and cubs emerge from their den. Polar bears
have extended maternal care and most dependent young remain with their
mother for approximately 2.3 years (Amstrup 2003). If the mother moves
young cubs from the den before they can walk or withstand the cold,
mortality of the cubs may result. Therefore, it is thought that
successful denning, birthing, and rearing activities require a
relatively undisturbed environment. Amstrup (2003), however, observed
that polar bear females in a den can display remarkable tolerance for a
variety of human disturbance.
Radio and satellite telemetry studies 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 from 1985 to 1994, to 40 percent from 1998 to
2004 (Fischbach et al. 2007). In Alaska, areas of maternal polar bear
dens of both the CS and SBS stocks appear to be less concentrated than
stocks located in Canada and the Russian Federation. Though some
variations in denning occurs among polar bears from various stocks,
there are significant similarities. A common trait of polar bear
denning habitat is topographic features that accumulate enough drifted
snow for females to excavate a den (Amstrup 2003; Durner et al. 2003;
Durner et al. 2006). Certain areas, such as barrier islands (linear
features of low elevation land adjacent to the main coastline that are
separated from the mainland by bodies of water), river bank drainages,
much of the North
[[Page 1955]]
Slope coastal plain, and coastal bluffs that occur at the interface of
mainland and marine habitat receive proportionally greater use for
denning than other areas by bears from the SBS stock (Durner et al.
2003; Durner et al. 2006). Maternal denning occurs on tundra-bearing
barrier islands along the Beaufort Sea and in the large river deltas,
such as the Colville and Canning Rivers. Denning of bears from the CS
stock occurs primarily on Wrangel and Herald Islands, and on the
Chukotka coast in the Russian Federation. Maternal denning on land for
the U.S. portion of the CS stock is rare, though anecdotal reports and
traditional knowledge of Alaska Natives indicate that it does happen.
Prey
Ringed seals (Pusa hispida) are the primary prey of polar bears in
most areas. Bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) are also common prey
for polar bears in the CS stock. Pacific walrus calves are hunted
occasionally, and walrus carcasses are scavenged at haulouts where
trampling occurs. Polar bears will occasionally feed on bowhead whale
(Balaena mysticetus) carcasses opportunistically wherever they may wash
ashore and at Point Barrow, Cross, and Barter islands, which are 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.
Utilization of sea ice is a vital component of polar bear predatory
behavior. Polar bears use sea ice as a platform to hunt seals, travel,
seek mates, and rest, among other things. They may hunt along leads,
polynyas, and other areas of open water associated with sea ice. Polar
bears employ a diverse range of methods and tactics to hunt prey. They
may wait motionless for extended periods at a seal breathing hole, or
may use scent to locate a seal lair then break through the roof; seal
lairs are excavated in snow drifts on top of the ice. Polar bears may
ambush seals along an ice edge from the ice or from the water. Polar
bears also stalk seals hauled out on the ice during warmer weather in
the spring. These are just few examples of the predatory methods of
polar bears. The common factor is the presence of sea ice in order for
polar bears to access prey. Due to changing sea ice conditions, the
area and time period of open water and proportion of marginal ice has
increased. On average, ice in the Chukchi Sea is melting sooner and
retreating farther north each year, and re-forming later. The annual
period of time that sea ice is over the shallow, productive waters of
the continental shelf is also diminishing. These effects may limit the
availability of seals to polar bears, as the most productive areas for
seals appear to be over the shallow waters of the continental shelf.
Mortality
Natural causes of mortality among polar bears are not well
understood (Amstrup 2003). Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30 years
in captivity); have no natural predators, except other polar bears; and
do not appear prone to death by diseases or parasites (Amstrup 2003).
Accidents and injuries incurred in the dynamic and harsh sea ice
environment, injuries incurred while fighting other bears, starvation
(usually during extreme youth or old age), freezing (also more common
during extreme youth or old age), and drowning are all known natural
causes of polar bear mortality (Derocher and Stirling 1996; Amstrup
2003). Cannibalism by adult males on cubs and other adult bears is also
known to occur; however, it is not thought that this is a common or
significant cause of mortality. After natural causes and old age, the
most significant source of polar bear mortality is from humans hunting
polar bears (Amstrup 2003). Other sources of polar bear mortality
related to human activities, though few and very rare, include research
activities, euthanasia of sick or injured bears, and defense of life
kills by non-Natives (Brower et al. 2002).
Subsistence Use and Harvest Patterns of Pacific Walruses and Polar
Bears
The Alaska Native communities most likely to be impacted by oil and
gas activities projected to occur in the Chukchi Sea during the 5-year
timeframe of the proposed regulations are: Barrow, Wainwright, Point
Lay, Point Hope, Kivalina, Kotzebue, Shishmaref, Little Diomede,
Gambell, and Savoonga. However, all communities that harvest Pacific
walruses or polar bears in the Chukchi Sea region could be affected by
Industry activities. Pacific walruses and polar bears are harvested by
Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. The harvest of these species
plays an important role in the culture and economy of many villages
throughout northern and western coastal Alaska. Walrus meat is consumed
by humans while the ivory is used to manufacture traditional
handicrafts. Alaska Natives hunt polar bears primarily for their fur,
which is used to manufacture cold weather clothing and handicrafts, but
also for their meat.
Under section 101(b) of the MMPA, Alaska Natives who reside in
Alaska and dwell on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic
Ocean are allowed to harvest walruses and polar bears if such harvest
is for subsistence purposes or for purposes of creating and selling
authentic Native articles of handicrafts and clothing, as long as the
harvest is not done in a wasteful manner. Additionally, and similar to
the exemption under the MMPA, section 10(e) of the ESA allows for the
continued harvest of species listed as endangered or threatened in
Alaska for subsistence purposes.
The sale of handmade clothing and handicrafts made of walrus or
polar bear parts is an important source of income in these remote
Alaska Native communities. Fundamentally, the production of handicrafts
is not a commercial activity, but rather a continuation and adaptation
to a market economy of an ancient Alaska Native tradition of making and
then bartering handicrafts and clothing for other needed items. The
limited cash that Alaska Native villagers can make from handmade
clothing and handicrafts is vital to sustain their subsistence hunting
and fishing way of life (Pungowiyi 2000).
The Service collects information on the subsistence harvest of
Pacific walruses and polar bears in Alaska through the Walrus Harvest
Monitor Program (WHMP) and the Marking, Tagging and Reporting Program
(MTRP). The WHMP is an observer-based program focused on the harvest of
Pacific walruses from the St. Lawrence Island communities Gambell and
Savoonga. The MTRP program is administered through a network of
``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 the harvest. Taggers also
certify (tag) specified parts (ivory tusks for walruses, hide and skull
for polar bears) to help control illegal take and trade. The MTRP
reports are thought to underestimate total U.S. Pacific walrus and
polar bear subsistence harvest. Harvest levels of polar bears and
walruses can vary considerably between years, presumably in response to
differences in animal distribution, sea ice conditions, and hunter
effort.
In 2010, the Native Villages of Gambell and Savoonga adopted local
ordinances that limit the number of walruses harvested to four and five
per hunting trip, respectively, which likely influences the total
number of animals harvested each year. No Chukchi Sea
[[Page 1956]]
villages have adopted anything similar, but they harvest comparatively
few walruses. Information on subsistence harvests of walruses and polar
bears in selected communities derived from MTRP harvest reports from
2007 to 2011 is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2--Number of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears Harvested From 2007
to 2011 in 12 Alaska Communities, as Reported Through the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) MTRP
[Walrus harvest numbers presented here are not corrected for MTRP
compliance rates or struck-and-lost estimates]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific
walrus Polar bear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrow........................................ 24 49
Gambell....................................... 3,069 9
Kivalina...................................... 4 3
Kotzebue...................................... 2 3
Little Diomede................................ 166 14
Nome.......................................... 24 1
Point Hope.................................... 25 51
Point Lay..................................... 10 2
Savoonga...................................... 2,918 16
Shishmaref.................................... 52 6
Wainwright.................................... 71 4
Wales......................................... 41 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Walrus
Barrow
Barrow is the northernmost community within the geographical region
of the proposed regulations. Most walrus hunting from Barrow occurs in
June and July when the landfast ice breaks up and hunters can access
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.
Wainwright
Wainwright hunters have typically harvested more walruses than
other mainland coastal subsistence communities on the North Slope.
Walruses are thought to represent approximately 40 percent of this
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 of the harvest from Wainwright occurs in June
and July. Most walrus hunting is thought to occur within 20 miles of
the community, in all seaward directions.
Point Hope
Point Hope hunters typically begin their walrus hunt in late May
and early June as walruses migrate north 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 of the reported walrus harvest at Point Hope occurs in the months
of June and September. Point Hope harvest occurs mostly within 5 miles
of the coast, or near coastal haulout sites at Cape Lisburne.
Point Lay
Point Lay walrus hunting peaks in June and July. Historically,
harvests have occurred primarily within 40 miles north and south along
the coast from Point Lay and approximately 30 miles offshore. Beginning
in 2010, walruses started hauling out on the barrier island about 4
miles north of Point Lay in August and remain there until late
September to early October. This provides Point Lay hunters with new
opportunities to harvest walrus, and reports indicate that from two to
five animals are harvested at that time of year. Hunters harvest during
the early stages of haulout formation and as the haulout begins to
dissipate to avoid creating a disturbance resulting in a large
stampede.
St. Lawrence Island
St. Lawrence Island is located in the Bering Sea south of the
Bering Strait. The two communities on the island are Gambell, on
western tip, and Savoonga on the north central shore. These two
subsistence hunting communities account for the majority of the Pacific
walrus harvest in Alaska. Most of the walrus harvest from Gambell and
Savoonga takes place in the spring, but some harvest also takes place
in the fall and winter, depending on ice and weather conditions.
Hunters from Gambell typically use areas north and east of the island
while hunters from Savoonga traditionally utilize areas north, west,
and south of the island. St. Lawrence Island hunters will typically
travel from 40 to 60 miles, and as much as 90 miles, out to sea to find
walruses. The consumption of traditional subsistence foods, such as
marine mammals, and the economic value of marine mammal parts, such as
walrus ivory, is thought to be more significant in Gambell and Savoonga
than in communities on the mainland coast of Alaska.
Polar Bears
Polar bears are harvested by Alaska Natives for subsistence and
handicraft purposes. This species plays an important role in the
culture and economy of many villages throughout western and northern
coastal Alaska, where the polar bear figures prominently in Alaska
Native stories, art, traditions, and cultural activities. In these
northern and western coastal Alaskan Native villages, the taking and
use of the polar bear is a fundamental part of Alaska Native culture.
For Alaska Natives engaged in subsistence uses, the very acts of
hunting, fishing, and gathering, coupled with the seasonal cycle of
these activities and the sharing and celebrations that accompany them,
are intricately woven into the fabric of their social, psychological,
and religious life (Pungowiyi 2000).
Polar Bear Harvest Patterns in Alaska
The following summary is excerpted from the Report of the
Scientific working group to the US-Russian Federation Polar Bear
Commission (May 2010), which describes the history of the polar bear
harvest during the last century. A more detailed description can be
found at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/bilateral.htm:
Prior to the 20th century Alaska's polar bears were hunted
primarily by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes although
commercial sales of hides occurred primarily as a result of Yankee
whaling and arctic exploration ventures. During the 20th century,
polar bears were harvested for subsistence, handicrafts, and
recreational sport hunting. Based on records of skins shipped from
Alaska for 1925 to 1953, the estimated annual statewide harvest
averaged 120 bears and this take was primarily by Native hunters.
Recreational hunting by non-Native sport hunters using aircraft
became popular from 1951 to 1972, increasing the statewide annual
harvest to 150 during 1951 to 1960 and to 260 during 1960 to 1972
(Amstrup et al. 1986). During the late 1960s and 1970s the size of
the Beaufort Sea stock declined substantially (Amstrup et al. 1986)
due to excessive sport harvest. Hunting by non-Natives was
prohibited in 1973 when provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) went into effect. The prohibition of non-Native sport
hunting led to a reduction in the annual harvest of polar bears from
the Alaska-Chukotka population from 189 50 bears/year
for the period 1961 to 1972 to 80 54 bears/year for the
period 1973 to 1984 (Amstrup et al. 1986; Fig. 1). According to
Service harvest records, from 1980 through the present, harvest of
the Alaska-Chukotka population in the U.S. portion has declined.
Reasons for a decline in the Alaska native subsistence harvest are
currently unknown, but are currently being investigated. Possible
causes include decreased hunter effort, decreased polar bear
numbers, changes in polar bear distribution, and environmental
conditions that make polar bears less available to hunters.
[[Page 1957]]
As stated previously, harvest levels of polar bears can vary
considerably between years for a variety of reasons, including annual
variations in animal distribution, sea ice conditions, and hunter
effort. Table 2 summarizes MTRP harvest reports for polar bears for
selected western Alaska communities from 2007 to 2011, the most recent
five-year period for which complete data are available. The harvest
information in Table 2 provides an insight into the level of polar bear
harvest by western Alaska communities during the previous five-year
period of Chukchi Sea ITRs. Average polar bear harvest levels in Alaska
have remained relatively stable over the past 20 years in the Southern
Beaufort Sea, but have declined in the Chukchi/Bering seas. Over these
past 20 years, six communities (Barrow, Point Hope, Savoonga, Gambell,
Little Diomede, and Wainwright) consistently account for the majority
of all polar bears harvested in Alaska. The reason for the decline in
harvest in western Alaska is unknown, but could be a result of reduced
hunter effort, changing distribution of bears, and/or a decline in the
number of bears in the population.
Polar bears are harvested throughout the calendar year, depending
on availability. Hunters in western Alaska, from Point Lay to St.
Lawrence Island, usually harvest bears after December, since bears
moving southward with advancing pack ice are not available in this area
until later in the season. The number of polar bears harvested from
Barrow is thought to be influenced by ice conditions and the number of
people out on the ice. Most polar bear harvests reported by Barrow
occurred in February and March. Polar bears are harvested from
Wainwright throughout much of the year, with peak harvests reported in
May and December within 10 miles of the community. Polar bears are
typically harvested from Point Hope from January to April within 10
miles of the community; however, Point Hope hunters reported taking
polar bears as far away as Cape Thompson and Cape Lisburne.
Although few people are thought to hunt specifically for polar
bears, those that do hunt primarily between October and March. Polar
bears are often harvested coincidentally with beluga and bowhead whale
harvests. 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
concentrate polar bears.
Harvest Management of Polar Bears in Alaska
The Service works through existing co-management agreements with
Alaska Natives to address future actions that affect polar bears and
polar bear hunting. This includes working with the Alaska Nanuuq
Commission (ANC), the NSB and its Native-to-Native Agreement with the
Inuvialuit Game Council of Canada (Beaufort Sea region), and the Joint
Commission formed with the Russian Federation under the Bilateral
Agreement (Chukchi/Bering seas region).
The ANC was formed in 1994, to represent the villages in North and
Northwest Alaska on matters concerning the conservation and sustainable
subsistence use of the polar bear. The mission of ANC is to ``conserve
Nanuuq and the Arctic ecosystem for present and future generations of
Arctic Alaska Natives.'' The tribal council of each member village has
passed a resolution to become a member and to authorize the ANC to
represent them on matters concerning the polar bear at regional and
international levels. Fifteen villages are currently members: Barrow;
Wainwright; Kotzebue; Nuiqsut; Savoonga; Kaktovik; Point Lay; Point
Hope; Brevig Mission; Shishmaref; Gambell; King Island; Wales; Little
Diomede; and Kivalina.
Polar bears harvested from the communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut,
Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Atqasuk are currently considered part of the
SBS stock and thus are subject to the terms of the Inuvialuit-Inupiat
Polar Bear Management Agreement (Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement).
The Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement establishes quotas and
recommendations concerning protection of denning females, family
groups, and methods of harvest. Adherence to the quota is voluntary in
the United States, and it has generally been followed since
implementation of the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement (Brower et al.
2002). Under the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement, quotas are recommended
by technical advisors based on estimates of population size and age
specific estimates of survival and recruitment. The current quota of 70
total bears per year was established in July 2010, and represents a
decrease from the previous quota of 80 total bears per year (Brower et
al. 2002). The quota is allocated to Canadian Inuvialuit and to Alaskan
Inupiat, with 35 bears each. The Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement and its
quotas are voluntary between the Inupiat and Inuvialuit, and are not
enforceable by any law or authority of the governments of the United
States or Canada.
The ``Agreement Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the
Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear
Population,'' signed in Washington, DC, on October 16, 2000 (the 2000
Agreement), provides legal protections for the population of polar
bears found in the Chukchi--Northern Bering Sea. The 2000 Agreement is
implemented in the United States through Title V of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and builds upon those
protections already provided to this population of polar bears through
the ``Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears,'' executed in Oslo,
Norway on November 13, 1973 (the 1973 Agreement), which was a
significant early step in the international conservation of polar
bears.
The 1973 Agreement is a multilateral treaty to which the United
States and Russia are parties with other polar bear range states:
Norway, Canada, and Denmark. While the 1973 Agreement provides
authority for the maintenance of a subsistence harvest of polar bears
and provides for habitat conservation, the 2000 Agreement specifically
establishes a common legal, scientific, and administrative framework
for the conservation and management of the Alaska--Chukotka polar bear
population between the United States and Russia.
The 2000 Agreement requires the United States and the Russian
Federation to manage and conserve polar bears based on reliable science
and to provide for subsistence harvest by native peoples. The U.S.--
Russian Federation Polar Bear Commission (Commission), which functions
as the bilateral managing authority, consists of a Native and Federal
representative of each country. The Commission is advised by a 16-
member Scientific Working Group (SWG), including experts on ice
habitat, bear ecology and population dynamics, and traditional
ecological knowledge.
Meetings of the Commission have occurred yearly since 2009. At the
fourth meeting of the Commission, which took place from June 25 through
27, 2012, in Anchorage, Alaska, United States, the Commission, based on
the recommendation of the SWG, agreed that no change was necessary to
the sustainable harvest level identified in 2010. In 2012, the
Commission adopted a 5-year sustainable harvest level of 290 polar
bears with no more than one third
[[Page 1958]]
to be female, with the requirements that the 5-year sustainable harvest
level be allocated over the 5-year period using methods recognized by
the SWG as biologically sound, and that these methods include the
identification of annual sustainable harvest levels, for consideration
by the Commission in setting annual taking limits. This cooperative
management regime for the subsistence harvest of bears is key to both
providing for the long term viability of the population as well as
addressing the social, cultural, and subsistence interests of Alaska
Natives and the native people of Chukotka.
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
Industry activities can affect individual walruses and polar bears
in numerous ways. The petitioners in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the AOGA
Petition describe anticipated impacts for Incidental Take Regulations
for Oil and Gas Activities in the Chukchi Sea and Adjacent Lands in
2013 to 2018, January 31, 2012. Potential effects, detailed below, from
Industry activities could include: (1) Disturbance due to noise; (2)
physical obstructions; (3) human encounters; and (4) effects on prey.
A thorough discussion of the impacts of Industry activities in the
Chukchi Sea on marine mammals is found in the Chukchi Sea Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Environment/Environmental_Analysis/2007-026-Vol%20I.pdf and the
Chukchi Sea Final Supplemental EIS, Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and
Gas Lease Sale 193 at http://www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/BOEM-Regions/Alaska-Region/Environment/Environmental-Analysis/OCS-EIS/EA-BOEMRE-2011-041.aspx.
Pacific Walruses
Proposed oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea
Region include the operation of seismic survey vessels, drillships,
icebreakers, supply boats, fixed wing aircrafts, and helicopters. These
activities could disturb walruses. Walruses that are disturbed may
experience insufficient rest, increased stress and energy expenditure,
interference with feeding, and masking of communication. Cows with
calves that experience disturbance may alter their care of calves, such
as staying in the water longer or nursing less frequently. Calves that
experience disturbance could spend an increased amount of time in the
water, affecting their thermoregulation. Prolonged or repeated
disturbances could potentially displace individuals or herds from
preferred feeding or resting areas. Disturbance events could cause
walrus groups to abandon land or ice haulouts.
The response of walruses to disturbance stimuli is highly variable.
Observations by walrus hunters and researchers suggest that males tend
to be more tolerant of disturbances than females and individuals tend
to react less than groups. Females with dependent calves are considered
the 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 (Kastelein et
al. 1993).
Walruses must periodically haul out onto ice or land to rest
between feeding bouts. Aerial surveys in the eastern Chukchi Sea found
that 80 to 96 percent of 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, walruses either follow the ice out of the region, or
relocate to coastal haulouts where their foraging trips are usually
restricted to near shore habitats. However, in 2010 and 2011, more than
20,000 walruses hauled out near Point Lay and many traveled to the
Hanna Shoal area to feed, returning to Point Lay. Therefore, in
evaluating the potential impacts of exploration activities on walruses,
the presence or absence of pack ice serves as one indicator of whether
or not walruses are likely to be found in the area. In addition, if
walruses are using coastal haulouts near Point Lay, or farther north,
many walruses could be encountered in the water over or near Hannah
Shoal as well as between the haul out area and Hanna Shoal (Jay et al.
2012; Delarue et al. 2012). Activities occurring in or near sea ice
habitats or areas of high benthic productivity have the greatest
potential for affecting walruses. Activities occurring during the open
water period away from known feeding areas are expected to affect
relatively small numbers of animals except as described above in
regards to walruses moving between coastal haulouts and offshore
feeding areas.
1. Disturbance From Noise
Noise generated by Industry activities, whether stationary or
mobile, has the potential to disturb walruses. Potential impacts of
Industry-generated noise include displacement from preferred foraging
areas, increased stress and energy expenditure, interference with
feeding, and masking of communications. Most impacts of Industry noise
on walruses are likely to be limited to a few groups or individuals
rather than the population due to their geographic range and seasonal
distribution within the geographic region. Reactions of marine mammals
to noise sources, particularly mobile sources such as marine vessels,
vary. Reactions depend on the individuals' prior exposure to the
disturbance source, their need or desire to be in the particular
habitat or area where they are exposed to the noise, and visual
presence of the disturbance sources.
Unobserved impacts to walruses due to aquatic and airborne noises
may occur, but cannot be estimated. Airborne noises have the greatest
potential to impact walruses occurring in large numbers at coastal
haulouts or on ice floes near industry activities. However,
restrictions on aircraft altitude and offset distances, as well as the
25-mile coastal exclusion zone enacted by BOEM, adequately mitigate
this potential impact of Industry activities when walruses are on land.
A detailed discussion of noise disturbance in the marine environment
follows.
A. Stationary Sources
An exploratory drill rig is an example of a stationary source of
sounds, odors, and visual stimuli. In estimating impacts, it is
difficult to separate those stimuli. However, walruses appear to rely
primarily on auditory and olfactory senses, and then sight when
responding to potential predators or other stimuli (Kastelein et al.
1993). Industrial ambient noise associated with the drilling
operations, such as generators and other equipment, is expected.
Walruses may respond to sound sources by either avoidance or tolerance.
Typically, walruses will avoid a disturbance by moving away.
In one reported observation in 1989 by Shell Western E & P, Inc., a
single walrus actually entered the moon pool of a stationary drillship
several times during a drilling operation. A moon pool is the opening
to the sea on a drillship for a marine drill apparatus. The drill
apparatus protrudes from the ship through the moon pool to the sea
floor. Eventually, the walrus had to be
[[Page 1959]]
removed from the ship for its own safety. During the same time period,
Shell Western E & P, Inc., also reported encountering multiple walruses
close to their drillship during offshore drilling operations in the
Chukchi Sea.
B. Mobile Sources
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 found near
source levels within the 180-decibel (dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m) safety
radius described by Industry for seismic activities could potentially
suffer shifts in hearing thresholds and temporary hearing loss. Seismic
survey vessels would be required to ramp up airguns slowly to allow
marine mammals the opportunity to move away from potentially injurious
sound sources. Marine mammal monitors would also be required to monitor
seismic safety zones and call for the power down or shutdown of airgun
arrays 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, animals may be
encountered in open water conditions. Walruses swimming in open water
would 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 would 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 would 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
(e.g., avoidance distance guidelines, seismic airgun shutdowns) based
upon monitoring information would be implemented to mitigate potential
impacts to walrus groups feeding or traveling in offshore locations and
ensure that these impacts would be limited to small numbers of animals.
C. Vessel Traffic
Offshore drilling 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 haulouts. The reaction of walruses to vessel traffic is
dependent upon vessel type, distance, speed, and previous exposure to
disturbances. Generally, walruses react to vessels by leaving the area,
but we are aware of at least one occasion where an adult walrus used a
vessel as a haulout platform in 2009. Walruses in the water appear to
be less readily disturbed by vessels than walruses hauled out on land
or sea ice, and it appears that low frequency diesel engines cause less
of a disturbance than high frequency outboard engines. In addition,
walrus densities within their normal distribution are highest along the
edge of the pack ice, and Industry vessels typically avoid these areas.
Furthermore, barges and vessels associated with Industry activities
travel in open water and avoid large ice floes or land where walruses
will be found.
Monitoring programs associated with exploratory drilling operations
in the Chukchi Sea in 1989 and 1990 noted that 25 to 60 percent,
respectively, of walrus groups encountered in the pack ice during
icebreaking responded by ``escaping'' (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991).
Escape was not defined, but we assume that walruses escaped by
abandoning the ice and swimming away. 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 (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991)
suggest that icebreaking activities can displace some walrus groups up
to several miles away; however, most groups of walruses resting on the
ice showed little reaction when they were beyond 805 m (0.5 mi) from
the activity.
When walruses are present, underwater noise from any vessel traffic
in the Chukchi Sea may ``mask'' ordinary communication between
individuals and prevent them from locating each other. It may also
prevent walruses from using potential habitats in the Chukchi Sea and
may have the potential to impede movement. Vessel traffic would likely
increase if offshore Industry expands and may increase if warming
waters and seasonally reduced sea ice cover alter northern shipping
lanes.
Impacts associated with transiting support vessels and aircrafts
are likely to be widely distributed throughout the area. Therefore,
noise and disturbance from aircraft and vessel traffic associated with
exploration projects are expected to have localized, short-term
effects. Nevertheless, the potential for disturbance events resulting
in injuries, mortalities, or cow-calf separations is of concern. The
potential for injuries, though unlikely, is expected to increase with
the size of affected walrus aggregations. Adaptive mitigation measures
(e.g., distance restrictions, reduced vessel speeds) 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 cow-calf separations.
While drilling operations are expected to occur during open water
conditions, the dynamic movements of sea ice could transport walruses
hauled out on ice within range of drilling operations. Any potential
disturbance to walrus in this condition would be through ice management
practices, where ice management may displace walruses from ice in order
to prevent displacement of the drill rig. Mitigation measures specified
in an LOA may include: requirements for ice scouting; surveys for
walruses and polar bears near active drilling operations and ice
breaking activities; requirements for marine mammal observers onboard
drillships and ice breakers; and operational restrictions near walrus
and polar bear aggregations. These measures are expected to reduce the
potential for interactions between walruses and drilling operations.
Ice floes that threaten drilling operations may have to be
intercepted and moved with a vessel, and those floes could be occupied
by resting walruses. Observations by icebreaker operators suggest that
most walruses will abandon drifting ice floes long before they reach
drilling rigs and before ice management vessels need to intercept a
floe that has to be deflected or broken. Ice management activities that
cause walruses to flush from or abandon ice would be considered as
intentional takes by the Service. Given the observations from previous
operations (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991), we expect this to be a rare
event and involve only small numbers of animals. In addition, Industry
has
[[Page 1960]]
developed an adaptive ice management procedure that requires case-by-
case approval by Service officials prior to managing ice occupied by
walruses. If ice threatening drilling operations is too large and thick
to be moved, drilling operations would be suspended, the well would be
capped, and the drill vessel would be moved until the ice passes.
D. Aircraft Traffic
Aircraft overflights may disturb walruses. Reactions to aircraft
vary with range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as well as walrus
age, sex, and group size. Adult females, calves, and immature walruses
tend to be more sensitive to aircraft disturbance. Fixed wing aircraft
are less likely to elicit a response than are helicopters. Walruses are
particularly sensitive to changes in engine, propeller, or rotor noise
and are more likely to stampede when aircraft turn sharply while
accelerating or fly low overhead. Researchers conducting aerial surveys
for walruses in sea ice habitats have observed less reaction to fixed
wing aircraft above 457 m (1,500 ft) (Service unpubl. data). Although
the intensity of the reaction to noise is variable, walruses are
probably most susceptible to disturbance by fast-moving and low-flying
aircraft, with helicopters usually causing the strongest reactions.
2. Physical Obstructions
It is unlikely that walrus movements would be displaced by offshore
stationary facilities, such as an exploratory drill rig. Vessel traffic
could temporarily interrupt the movement of walruses, or displace some
animals when vessels pass through an area. This displacement would
probably have minimal or no effect on animals and would last no more
than a few hours.
3. Human Encounters
Human encounters with walruses could occur during Industry
operations. These types of encounters would most likely be associated
with support activities in the coastal environments near walrus coastal
haulouts. Disturbance events could 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. Mortalities from trampling are most severe when
large numbers of walruses resting on land are disturbed and flee en
masse to the ocean. In 2007, more than 3,000 calves died along the
Chukotka coast due to stampedes caused by humans and polar bears. Since
then, mortalities in the Russian Federation and the United States have
been less than 700 per year. This type of disturbance from Industry
activity is considered highly unlikely. Areas where and when walrus
coastal haulouts form in the United States would be protected with
additional mitigation measures, such as activity exclusion zones,
airspace restrictions, and close monitoring.
4. Effect on Prey Species
Walruses feed primarily on immobile benthic invertebrates. The
effect of Industry activities on benthic invertebrates most likely
would be from oil discharged into the environment. Oil has the
potential to impact walrus prey species in a variety of ways including,
but not limited to, mortality due to smothering or toxicity,
perturbations in the composition of the benthic community, and altered
metabolic and growth rates. The low likelihood of an oil spill large
enough to affect prey populations (see analysis in the section titled
Potential Impacts of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears, Pacific Walrus subsection) indicates that
Industry activities would likely have limited effects on walruses
through effects on prey species.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on Walruses
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 Chukchi as well as the Beaufort Sea, 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 would be limited to
minor behavioral modifications due to temporary, nonlethal
disturbances. These behavioral changes are not outside the subspecies'
normal range of activity and are not reasonably expected to, or likely
to, affect rates of overall population recruitment or survival. 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 would
be any lethal take of walruses associated with these activities or any
impacts on survival or reproduction.
Polar Bears
In the Chukchi Sea, polar bears will have a limited presence during
the open water season associated with Industry operations. This is
because most bears move with the ice to the northern portion of the
Chukchi Sea and distribute along the pack ice during this time, which
is outside of the geographic region of the proposed regulations.
Additionally, they are found more frequently along the Chukotka
coastline in the Russian Federation. This would limit the probability
of major impacts on polar bears from offshore Industry activities in
the Alaskan portion of the Chukchi Sea. Although polar bears have been
observed in open water, miles from the ice edge or ice floes, this has
been a relatively rare occurrence.
Polar bears will be present in the region of activity in limited
numbers and, therefore, oil and gas activities could affect polar bears
in various ways during both offshore and onshore activities. (1)
Impacts from offshore activities; (2) impacts from onshore activities;
(3) impacts from human encounters; (4) effects on prey species; and (5)
effects on polar bear critical habitat are described below.
1. Offshore Activities
In the open water season, Industry activities would be limited to
vessel-based exploration activities, such as exploratory drilling and
seismic surveys. These activities avoid ice floes and the multi-year
ice edge; however, they could contact a limited number of bears in open
water and on ice floes.
A. Vessel Activities
Vessel-based activities, including operational support vessels,
such as barges, supply vessels, oil spill response, and ice management
vessels, in the Chukchi Sea could affect polar bears in a number of
ways. Seismic ships, icebreakers, or the drilling rig may become
physical obstructions to polar bear movements, although these impacts
would be short-term and localized. Likewise, noise, sights, and smells
produced by exploration activities could disrupt their natural behavior
by repelling or attracting bears to human activities.
Polar bears are curious and tend to investigate novel sights,
smells, and noises. If bears are present, noise produced by offshore
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.
In general, little is known about the potential for seismic survey
sounds to
[[Page 1961]]
cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in polar bears.
Researchers have studied the hearing sensitivity of polar bears to
understand how noise can affect polar bears, but additional research is
necessary to elaborate on potential negative effects of noise.
Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would
be limited to short distances from the sound source and probably to
projects involving large airgun arrays. Polar bears swim predominantly
with their heads above the surface, where underwater noises are weak or
undetectable, and this behavior may naturally limit noise exposure to
polar bears. There is no evidence that airgun pulses can cause serious
injury or death to bears, even in the case of large airgun arrays.
Additionally, the planned monitoring and mitigation measures include
shutdowns of the airguns, which would reduce any such effects that
might otherwise occur if polar bears are observed in the ensonification
zones. 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.
Though polar bears are known to be extremely curious and may
approach sounds and objects to investigate, they are also known to move
away from sources of noise and the sight of vessels, icebreakers,
aircraft, and helicopters. The effects of retreating from vessels or
aircraft may be minimal if the event is short and the animal is
otherwise unstressed. For example, retreating from an active icebreaker
may produce minimal effects for a healthy animal on a cool day;
however, on a warm spring or summer day, a short run may be enough to
overheat a well-insulated polar bear.
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 potential 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.
Bears in water may be in a stressed state if found near Industry
sites. Researchers have recently documented that bears occasionally
swim long distances during the open water period seeking either ice or
land. They suspect that the bears may not swim constantly, but find
solitary icebergs or remnants to haulout on and rest. The movement is
becoming more common, but highlights the ice-free environment that
bears are being increasingly exposed to that requires increased energy
demands. In one study (between 2004 through 2009), researchers noted
that 52 bears embarked on long-distance swim events. In addition, they
documented 50 swims that had an average length of 96 miles. They noted
that long-distance swim events are still uncommon, but 38 percent of
collared bears took at least one long-distance swim.
The majority of vessels, such as seismic boats and barges,
associated with Industry activities travel in open water and avoid
large ice floes. Some, such as ice management vessels, operate in close
proximity to the ice edge and unconsolidated ice during open-water
activities. Vessel traffic could encounter an occasional bear swimming
in the open water. However, the most likely habitat where bears would
be encountered during the open-water season is on the pack ice edge or
on ice floes in open water. During baseline studies conducted in the
Chukchi Sea between 2008 and 2010, 14 of 16 polar bears encountered by
a research vessel were observed on the ice, while the remaining two
bears were observed in the water swimming (Service unpublished data).
If there is an encounter between a vessel and a polar bear, it
would most likely result in temporary behavioral disturbance only. In
open water, vessel traffic could result in short-term behavioral
responses to swimming polar bears through ambient noise produced by the
vessels, such as underwater propeller cavitation, or activities
associated with them, such as on-board machinery, where a bear would
most likely swim away from the vessel. Indeed, observations from
monitoring programs report that when bears are encountered in open
water swimming, bears have been observed retreating from the vessel as
it passes (Service unpublished data).
Polar bears could be encountered if a vessel is operating in ice or
near ice floes, where the response of bears on ice to vessels is
varied. Bears on ice have been observed retreating from vessels;
exhibiting few reactions, such as a cessation in activity or turning
their head to watch the vessel; and exhibiting no perceived reaction at
all to the vessel. Bears have also been observed approaching vessels in
the ice.
B. Aircraft
Routine, commercial aircraft traffic flying at high altitudes
(approximately 10,000 to 30,000 feet above ground level (AGL)) 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. A minimum altitude requirement of 1,500 feet for
aircraft associated with Industry activity would help mitigate
disturbance to 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 summary, while offshore, open water seismic exploration
activities could encounter polar bears in the Chukchi Sea during the
latter part of the operational period, it is unlikely that exploration
activities or other geophysical surveys during the open water season
would result in more than temporary behavioral disturbance to polar
bears. Any disturbance would be visual and auditory in nature, and
likely limited to deflecting bears from their route. Seismic surveys
are unlikely to cause serious impacts to polar bears as they normally
swim with their heads above the surface, where noises produced
underwater are weak, and polar bears rarely dive below the surface. Ice
management activities in support of the drilling operation have the
greatest potential to disturb bears by flushing bears off ice floes
when moving ice out of the path of the drill rig.
Monitoring and mitigation measures required for open water,
offshore activities would include, but would not be limited to: (1) A
0.5-mile operational exclusion zone around polar bear(s) on land, ice,
or swimming; (2) marine mammal observers (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. We expect these
mitigation measures would further reduce the potential for interactions
between polar bears and offshore operations.
2. Onshore Activities
While no large exploratory programs, such as drilling or seismic
surveys, are currently being developed for onshore sites in the Chukchi
Sea geographic area, land-based support facilities, maintenance of the
Barrow Gas Fields, and onshore baseline studies may contact polar
bears. Bear-human interactions at onshore activities are
[[Page 1962]]
expected to occur 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 sites. Noise
disturbance could originate from either stationary or mobile sources.
Stationary sources include support facilities. Mobile sources can
include vehicle and aircraft traffic in association with Industry
activities, such as ice road construction. The effects for these
sources are described below.
A. Noise
Noise produced by onshore 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.
Noise attracting bears to Industry activities, especially activities in
the coastal or nearshore environment, could result in bear-human
interactions, which could result in unintentional harassment,
deterrence (under a separate authorization), or lethal take of the
bear. Unintentional harassment would most likely be infrequent, short-
term, and temporary by either attracting a curious bear to the noise or
causing a bear to move away. Deterrence by non-lethal harassment to
move a bear away from humans would be much less likely, infrequent,
short-term, and temporary. Lethal take of a polar bear from bear-human
interaction related to Industry activity is extremely unlikely
(discussed in the Analysis of Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry on
Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea).
During the ice-covered season, noise from onshore activities could
deter females from denning in the surrounding area, given the
appropriate conditions, although a few polar bears have been known to
den in proximity to industrial activity. Only a minimal amount of
denning by polar bears has been recorded on the western coast of
Alaska; however, onshore activities could affect potential den habitat
and den site selection if they were located near facilities. However,
with limited onshore denning, proposed activities impacts to onshore
denning are expected to be minimal.
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.
Implementation of mitigation measures, such as the one-mile operational
exclusion area around known dens or the temporary cessation of Industry
activities, would ensure that disturbance is minimized.
B. Aircraft
As with offshore activities, routine high altitude aircraft traffic
would likely 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 on shore. 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. Mitigation measures, such
as minimum flight elevations over polar bears or areas of concern and
flight restrictions around known polar bear dens, would be required, as
appropriate, to reduce the likelihood that bears are disturbed by
aircraft.
3. Human Encounters
While more polar bears transit through the coastal areas than
inland, we do not anticipate many bear-human interactions due to the
limited amount of human activity that has occurred on the western coast
of Alaska. Near-shore activities could potentially increase the rate of
bear-human interactions, which could result in increased incidents of
harassment of bears. Industry currently implements company policies,
implements interaction plans, and conducts employee training to reduce
and mitigate such encounters under the guidance of the Service. 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.
Industry has developed and uses devices to aid in detecting polar
bears, including human bear monitors, remote cameras, 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.
Bear-human interactions would be mitigated through conditions in
LOAs, which require the applicant to develop a polar bear interaction
plan for each operation. These plans outline the steps the applicant
would 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.
4. Effect on Prey Species
Ringed seals are the primary prey of polar bears and bearded seals
are a secondary prey source. Both species are managed by the U.S.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which 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
impact finding is appropriate. Industry would mainly have an effect on
seals through the potential for industrial noise disturbance and
contamination (oil spills). The Service does not expect prey
availability to be significantly changed due to Industry activities.
Mitigation measures for pinnipeds required by BOEM and NMFS would
reduce the impact of Industry activities on ringed and bearded seals. A
detailed description of potential Industry effects on pinnipeds in the
Chukchi Sea can be found in the NMFS biological opinion, ``Endangered
Species Act--Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion; Issuance of
Incidental Harassment Authorization Under Section 101(a)(5)(a) of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act to Shell Offshore, Inc. for Exploratory
Drilling in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea in 2012'' (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/shell_chukchi_opinion.pdf).
5. Polar Bear Critical Habitat
Industry activities could also have potential impacts to polar bear
habitat, which in some cases could lead to impacts to bears. The
proposed regulations may only authorize incidental take within a
specified geographic area (Figure 1). The geographic area covered by
the proposed regulations includes polar bear critical habitat. The
discussion of potential impacts to polar bear habitat is therefore
focused on areas identified as polar bear critical habitat. In the
final rule that established polar bear critical habitat (75 FR 76086;
December 7, 2010), the Service identified three critical habitat units
for polar bear critical habitat, these are: (1) Sea ice, used for
feeding, breeding, denning, and movements; (2) barrier island habitat,
used for denning, refuge from human disturbance, and transit corridors;
and (3) terrestrial denning habitat for
[[Page 1963]]
denning. Industry activities may affect this described habitat as
discussed below.
A. Sea Ice Habitat
The proposed regulations would only allow exploratory oil and gas
activities to occur during the open water season. However, support
activities can occur throughout the year and may interact with sea ice
habitat on a limited basis. Ice reconnaissance flights to survey ice
characteristics and ice management operations using vessels to deflect
ice floes from drill rigs are two types of activities that have the
potential to affect sea ice. Support activities outside of the open
water season would be limited in scope and would likely have limited
effects on sea ice habitat during the ice-covered seasons within the
timeframe of the proposed regulations (2013 to 2018).
B. Barrier Island Habitat
Proposed support activities near communities, such as Wainwright
and Point Lay, for seismic, shallow hazard surveys; open water marine
survey; or terrestrial environmental studies are the types of
exploration activities requested that may affect polar bear barrier
island habitat. Vessels associated with marine activities operating in
the Chukchi Sea may use barrier island habitat to ``wait out a storm.''
Bears using the islands to rest and travel may encounter temporarily
beached vessels. Past observations reported to the Service indicate
that bears will walk by such vessels, but may not rest near them. This
is a temporary effect associated with the beached vessel and once the
vessel is removed from the beach, the bears return to travelling or
resting on the beach.
Aerial transport activities in support of Industry programs may
also encounter barrier island habitat while transiting to and from
communities. Air operations would have regulatory flight restrictions,
but in certain circumstances, such as emergencies, flights could
displace bears from barrier island habitat. Established mitigation
measures described in the proposed regulations, such as minimum
altitude restrictions, wildlife observers and adherence to company
polar bear interaction plans, would further limit potential
disturbances.
C. Terrestrial Denning Habitat
In western Alaska, mainland support facilities for offshore
activities may occur within designated coastal polar bear critical
habitat. Staging activities, remote camps, construction of ice roads,
and aerial transport to support projects all have the potential to
occur in coastal areas in or near denning habitat. If necessary,
proactive and reactive mitigation measures set forth in the proposed
regulations would minimize disturbance impacts within designated
critical habitat and/or impacts to denning habitat. The Service
encourages that all transit routes occur outside of critical habitat
and may require den detection surveys in areas of denning habitat. At
times, Industry may have to place ice roads or staging activities in
coastal denning areas. Mitigation measures to minimize potential
impacts include establishment of the 1-mile exclusion zone around known
maternal dens, and the reduction of activity levels until the natural
departure of the bears. Currently, what little is known about the
denning habits of the Chukchi-Bering Sea population suggests that the
majority of maternal dens occur in the Russian Federation,
predominantly on Wrangel Island (DeBruyn et al. 2010). While denning
habitat exists in western Alaska, no confirmed polar bear dens have
been recorded in western Alaska since 2006 (Durner et al. 2010). A more
detailed description of den detection techniques required by the
Service and employed by exploration activities to limit disturbance and
minimize impacts to maternal polar bear den sites has been discussed in
the Service's Beaufort Sea regulations (76 FR 47010; August 3, 2011).
The Service would implement these techniques if active polar bear dens
are recorded during Industry activities.
Although Industry activities may temporarily reduce site-specific
availability of small portions of polar bear critical habitat primary
constituent elements (PCEs) for feeding, mating, movements, denning,
and access to prey, these actions would be temporary and not result in
long-term effects on the PCE's capabilities to support biological
functions of polar bears. Based on the information provided by the
petitioners, the Service concludes that effects from Industry activity
to polar bear critical habitat and the associated PCEs would be
insignificant, due to the limited magnitude and temporary nature of the
proposed activities.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on Polar Bears
The Service anticipates that potential impacts of seismic noise,
physical obstructions, human encounters, changes in distribution or
numbers of prey species in the offshore and onshore environments 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 timeframe of the
proposed regulations. 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 the Russian Federation during this time of
year. Onshore encounters with polar bears are expected to be minimal
due to the limited activity planned along the coastline of Alaska
during the timeframe of the regulations. We do not anticipate any
lethal take due to Industry activities during the 5-year time period of
the proposed regulations. We expect that specific mitigation measures,
such as education of Industry personnel, would minimize bear-human
interactions that could lead to lethal take of polar bears. Our
experience in the Beaufort Sea similarly suggests that it is unlikely
there would be any lethal take of bears due to Industry activity within
the 5-year time period of the proposed regulations.
Potential impacts to bears would be mitigated through various
requirements stipulated within LOAs. Mitigation measures that would 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. Examples of mitigation measures that would
be used on a case-by-case basis include: The use of trained marine
mammal observers associated with offshore activities; bear monitors for
onshore activities; and seismic shutdown procedures in ensonification
zones. The Service implements an adaptive management approach where
certain mitigation measures are based on need and effectiveness for
specific activities based largely on timing and location. For example,
the Service would implement different mitigation measures for an
onshore baseline study 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 bear-human interactions may differ depending on
location and the timing of the activity.
Furthermore, mitigation measures imposed through BOEM/BSEE lease
stipulations are designed to avoid Level A harassment (injury), reduce
Level B
[[Page 1964]]
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 measures
described in the these incidental take regulations would help reduce
the level of Industry impacts to polar bears during the exploration
activities, and the issuance of LOAs with site specific operating
restrictions and monitoring requirements would provide mitigation and
protection for polar bears. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed
exploration activities, as mitigated through the regulatory process,
would impact small numbers of animals, are not expected to have more
than negligible impacts on polar bears in the Chukchi Sea and would not
have an unmitigable, adverse impact on the availability of polar bears
for subsistence uses.
Potential Impacts of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
In this section, we discuss the potential effects of oil spills
from Industry activities on Pacific walruses and polar bears. We
recognize that a wide range of potential effects from oil spills on
these species could occur, from minimal effects to potentially
substantial ones. We emphasize, however, that the only types of spills
that could have significant effects on these species are large spills.
Based on projections from BOEM/BSEE, the likelihood of large spills
from Industry exploration activities are extremely remote, and thus, we
consider impacts from such spills to be highly unlikely. Nevertheless,
we provide a full discussion of oil spill risks and possible effects
from oil spills, in the extremely unlikely event that such as spill
could occur.
Effects of Waste Discharge and Potential Oil Spills on Pacific Walrus
The possibility of oil and waste product spills from Industry
exploration activities and the subsequent impacts on walruses are a
concern. Little is known about the effects of either on walruses as no
studies have been conducted and no documented spills have occurred
affecting walruses in their habitat. Depending on the extent of an oil
spill, adult walruses may not be severely affected through direct
contact, but they will be extremely sensitive to any disturbances
created by spill response activities. In addition, due to the
gregarious nature of walruses, a release of contaminants would most
likely affect multiple individuals if it occurred in an area occupied
by walruses. Walruses may repeatedly expose themselves to waste or oil
that has accumulated at the edge of a shoreline or ice lead as they
enter and exit the water.
Damage to the skin of pinnipeds can occur from contact with oil
because some of the oil penetrates into the skin, causing inflammation
and death of some tissue. The dead tissue is discarded, leaving behind
an ulcer. While these skin lesions have only rarely been found on oiled
seals, the effects on walruses may be greater because of a lack of hair
to protect the skin. Like other pinnipeds, walruses are susceptible to
oil contamination in their eyes. Direct exposure to oil could also
result in conjunctivitis. Continuous exposure to oil would quickly
cause permanent eye damage.
Inhalation of hydrocarbon fumes presents another threat to marine
mammals. In studies conducted on pinnipeds, pulmonary hemorrhage,
inflammation, congestion, and nerve damage resulted after exposure to
concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a period of 24 hours. If the
walruses were also under stress from molting, pregnancy, etc., the
increased heart rate associated with the stress would circulate the
hydrocarbons more quickly, lowering the tolerance threshold for
ingestion or inhalation.
Adult and sub-adult walruses have thick skin and blubber layers for
insulation and very little hair. Thus, they exhibit no grooming
behavior, which lessens their chance of ingesting oil. Heat loss is
regulated by control of peripheral blood flow through the animal's skin
and blubber. Direct exposure of adult walruses to oil is not believed
to have any effect on the insulating capacity of their skin and
blubber, although it is unknown if oil could affect their peripheral
blood flow.
Walrus calves are also likely to suffer from the effects of oil
contamination. Walrus calves can swim almost immediately after birth
and will often join their mother in the water, increasing their risk of
being oiled. However, calves have not yet developed enough insulating
blubber to spend as much time in the water as adults. It is possible,
but unknown, that oiled walrus calves may not be able to regulate heat
loss and may be more susceptible to hypothermia. Another possibility is
an oiled calf that is unable to swim away from the contamination and a
cow that would not leave without the calf, resulting in the potential
exposure of both animals. However, it is also possible that an oiled
calf would be unrecognizable to its mother either by sight or by smell,
and be abandoned.
Walruses are benthic feeders, and the fate of benthic prey
contaminated by an oil spill is difficult to predict. In general,
benthic invertebrates preferred by walruses (bivalves, gastropods, and
polychaetes) may either decline or increase as the result of a spill
(Sanders et al. 1980; Jacobs 1980; Elmgren et al. 1983; Jewett et al.
1999). Impacts vary among spills and species within a spill, but in
general, benthic communities move through several successive stages of
temporal change until the communities approach pre-disturbance
conditions (Dauvin 1998), which may take 20 years. Much of the benthic
prey contaminated by an oil spill or gas release, such as methane, may
be killed immediately. 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 the contamination within the organism. In addition, because walruses
feed primarily on mollusks, they may be highly vulnerable to a loss of
this prey species. However, epifaunal bivalves were one of the benthic
community classes that increased following the Exxon Valdez spill in
Alaska (Jewett et al. 1999).
Depending on the location and timing, oil spills could affect
walruses in a number of ways. An offshore spill during open water may
only affect a few walruses swimming through the affected area. However,
spilled oil present along ice edges and ice leads in fall or spring
during formation or breakup of ice presents a greater risk because of
both the difficulties associated with cleaning oil in mixed, broken
ice, and the presence of wildlife in prime feeding areas over the
continental shelf during this period. Oil spills affecting areas where
walruses and polar bears are concentrated, such as along off-shore
leads, polynyas, preferred feeding areas, and terrestrial habitat used
for denning or haul-outs would affect more animals than spills in other
areas.
The potential impacts to Pacific walruses from a spill could be
significant, particularly if subsequent cleanup efforts are
ineffective. These potential impacts would be greatest when walrus are
aggregated at coastal haulouts. For example, walruses would be most
vulnerable to the effects of an oil spill at coastal haulouts if the
oil comes within 60 km of the coast (Garlich-Miller et al. 2010, p.
87). Spilled oil during the ice-covered season not cleaned up could
become part of the ice substrate and be eventually released back into
the
[[Page 1965]]
environment during the following open-water season. During spring melt,
oil would be collected by spill response activities, but it could
eventually contact a limited number of walruses.
In the unlikely event there is an oil spill and walruses are in the
same area, mitigation measures, especially those to deflect and deter
animals from spilled areas, may minimize the associated risks. Fueling
crews have personnel that are trained to handle operational spills and
contain them. If a small offshore spill occurs, spill response vessels
are stationed in close proximity and are required to respond
immediately. A detailed discussion of oil spill prevention and response
for walruses can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fws.gov/Contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/FWSContingencyTOC.htm.
Although fuel and oil spills have the potential to cause adverse
impacts to walruses and possibly some 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 low. Furthermore, blowout prevention technology
would be required for all exploratory drilling operations in the
Chukchi Sea by the permitting agencies, and the BOEM/BSEE considers the
likelihood of a blowout occurring during exploratory drilling in the
Chukchi Sea as negligible (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026). The BOEM/BSEE
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.
Effects of Waste Discharge and Potential Oil Spills on Polar Bear
Individual polar bears can potentially be affected by Industry
activities through waste product discharge and oil spills. In 1980,
Canadian scientists performed experiments that studied the effects to
polar bears of exposure to oil. Effects on experimentally oiled polar
bears (where bears were forced to remain in oil for prolonged periods)
included acute inflammation of the nasal passages, marked epidermal
responses, anemia, anorexia, and biochemical changes indicative of
stress, renal impairment, and death. Many effects did not become
evident until several weeks after the experiment ([Oslash]ritsland et
al. 1981).
Oiling of the pelt causes significant thermoregulatory problems by
reducing the insulation value. Irritation or damage to the skin by oil
may further contribute to impaired thermoregulation. Experiments on
live polar bears and pelts showed that the thermal value of the fur
decreased significantly after oiling, and oiled bears showed increased
metabolic rates and elevated skin temperature. Oiled bears are also
likely to ingest oil as they groom to restore the insulation value of
the oiled fur.
Oil ingestion by polar bears through consumption of contaminated
prey, and by grooming or nursing, could have pathological effects,
depending on the amount of oil ingested and the individual's
physiological state. Death could occur if a large amount of oil is
ingested or if volatile components of oil were aspirated into the
lungs. Indeed, two of three bears died in the Canadian experiment, and
it was suspected that the ingestion of oil was a contributing factor to
the deaths. Experimentally oiled bears ingested much oil through
grooming. Much of it was eliminated by vomiting and in the feces; some
was absorbed and later found in body fluids and tissues.
Ingestion of sub-lethal amounts of oil can have various
physiological effects on a polar bear, depending on whether the animal
is able to excrete or detoxify the hydrocarbons. Petroleum hydrocarbons
irritate or destroy epithelial cells lining the stomach and intestine,
thereby affecting motility, digestion, and absorption.
Polar bears swimming in, or walking adjacent to, an oil spill could
inhale petroleum vapors. Vapor inhalation by polar bears could result
in damage to various systems, such as the respiratory and the central
nervous systems, depending on the amount of exposure.
Oil may also affect food sources of polar bears. Seals that die
because of an oil spill could be scavenged by polar bears. This would
increase exposure of the bears to hydrocarbons and could result in
lethal impact or reduced survival to individual bears. A local
reduction in ringed seal numbers because of direct or indirect effects
of oil could temporarily affect the local distribution of polar bears.
A reduction in density of seals as a direct result of mortality from
contact with spilled oil could result in polar bears not using a
particular area for hunting. Possible impacts from the loss of a food
source could reduce recruitment and/or survival.
The persistence of toxic subsurface oil and chronic exposures, even
at sub-lethal levels, can have long-term effects on wildlife (Peterson
et al. 2003). Although it may be true that small numbers of bears may
be affected by an oil spill initially, the long-term impact could be
much greater. Long-term oil effects could be substantial through
interactions between natural environmental stressors and compromised
health of exposed animals, and through chronic, toxic exposure because
of bioaccumulation. Polar bears are biological sinks for pollutants
because they are the apical predator of the Arctic ecosystem and are
opportunistic scavengers of other marine mammals. Additionally, their
diet is composed mostly of high-fat sealskin and blubber (Norstrom et
al. 1988). The highest concentrations of persistent organic pollutants
in Arctic marine mammals have been found in polar bears and seal-eating
walruses near Svalbard (Norstrom et al. 1988; Andersen et al. 2001;
Muir et al. 1999). As such, polar bears would be susceptible to the
effects of bioaccumulation of contaminants associated with spilled oil,
which could affect the bears' reproduction, survival, and immune
systems. Sub-lethal, chronic effects of any oil spill may further
suppress the recovery of polar bear populations due to reduced fitness
of surviving animals.
In addition, subadult polar bears are more vulnerable than adults
are to environmental effects (Taylor et al. 1987). Subadult polar bears
would be most prone to the lethal and sub-lethal effects of an oil
spill due to their proclivity for scavenging (thus increasing their
exposure to oiled marine mammals) and their inexperience in hunting.
Indeed, grizzly bear researchers in Katmai National Park suspected that
oil ingestion contributed to the death of two yearling grizzly bears in
1989, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. They detected levels of
naphthalene and phenathrene in the bile of one of the bears. Because of
the greater maternal investment a weaned subadult represents, reduced
survival rates of subadult polar bears have a greater impact on
population growth rate and sustainable harvest than reduced litter
production rates (Taylor et al. 1987).
During the open water season (July to October), bears in the open
water or on land may encounter and be affected by any such oil spill;
however, given the seasonal nature of the Industry activities, the
potential for direct negative impacts to polar bears would be
minimized. During the ice-covered season (November to May), onshore
Industry activities would have the greatest likelihood of exposing
[[Page 1966]]
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 Chukotka
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 affect 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. While industrial in origin, the source of the mixture was unknown.
The major concern regarding large oil spills is the impact a spill
would have on the survival and recruitment of the Chukchi Sea and
southern Beaufort Sea polar bear populations that use the region.
Currently, the Southern Beaufort Seas bear population is approximately
1,500 bears, and the Chukchi Sea bear population estimate is 2,000.
These populations may be able to sustain the additional mortality
caused by a large oil spill if a small number of bears are killed;
however, the additive effect of numerous bear deaths due to the direct
or indirect effects from a large oil spill are more likely to reduce
population recruitment and survival. Indirect effects may occur through
a local reduction in seal productivity or scavenging of oiled seal
carcasses and other potential impacts, both natural and human-induced.
The removal of a large number of bears from either population would
exceed sustainable levels, potentially causing a decline in bear
populations and affecting bear productivity and subsistence use.
The time of greatest impact from an oil spill to polar bears is
most likely during the ice-covered season when bears use the ice. To
access ringed and bearded seals, polar bears concentrate in shallow
waters less that 300 m deep over the continental shelf and in areas
with greater than 50 percent ice cover (Durner et al. 2004). At this
time, bears may be exposed to any remnant oil from the previous open
water season. Spilled oil also can concentrate and accumulate in leads
and openings that occur during spring break-up and autumn freeze-up
periods. Such a concentration of spilled oil would increase the chance
that polar bears and their principal prey would be oiled.
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 BOEM/BSEE, during exploratory activities, the
probability of a large oil spill (defined as >= 1,000 barrels [bbls])
occurring throughout the duration of these proposed regulations (5
years) is very small. In addition, protocols for controlling waste
products in project permits would limit exposure of bears to the waste
products. 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
affecting the population. Oil spill contingency plans are authorized by
project permitting agencies and, if necessary, would limit the exposure
of bears to oil.
Description of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills
Waste products are substances that can be accidently introduced
into the environment by Industry activities. Examples include ethyl
glycol, drilling muds, or treated water. Generally, they are released
in small amounts. Oil spills are releases of oil or petroleum products.
In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit Program, all 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 even
small spills. BOEM/BSEE classifies oil spills as either small (< 1,000
barrels [bbls]) or large (>= 1,000 bbls). A volume of oil of 1,000 bbl
equals 42,000 U.S. gallons (gal), or 158,987 liters (L). Reported small
spills are those that have occurred during standard Industry
operations. Examples include oil, gas, or hydraulic fluid spills from
mechanized equipment or spills from pipelines or facilities. While oil
spills are unplanned events, large spills are associated with oil
platforms, such as drill rigs or pads and pipelines. There is generally
some form of human error combined with faulty equipment, such as
pipeline degradation, that causes a large spill.
Most regional oil spill information comes from the Beaufort Sea
area, where oil and gas production has already been established.
According to BOEM/BSEE, on the Beaufort and Chukchi OCS, Industry has
drilled 35 exploratory wells, five of which occurred in the Chukchi
Sea. The most recent drilling operation in the Chukchi Sea occurred in
1991. BOEM's most current data suggest that between 1977 and 1999, an
average of 70 oil and 234 waste product spills occurred annually on the
North Slope oil fields in the terrestrial and marine environment.
Although most spills have been small (less than 50 bbl, 2,100 gal, or
7,950 L) by Industry standards, larger spills accounted for much of the
annual volume. Historically, Industry has had 35 small spills totaling
26.7 bbl (1,121 gal, 4,245 L) in the Beaufort and Chukchi OCS. Of the
26.7 bbl spilled, approximately 24 bbl (1,008 gal, 3,816 L) were
recovered or cleaned up. Seven large, terrestrial oil spills occurred
between 1985 and 2009 on the Beaufort Sea North Slope. The largest oil
spill occurred in the spring of 2006, where approximately 5,714 bbl
(260,000 gal, 908,500 L) leaked from flow lines near a gathering
center. In November 2009, a 1,095 bbl (46,000 gal, 174,129 L) oil spill
occurred as well. Both of these spills occurred at production sites.
More recently, in 2012, a gas blowout occurred at an exploration well
where approximately 1,000 bbl (42,000 gal, 159,987 L) of drilling mud
and an unknown amount of natural gas was expelled. These spills were
terrestrial and posed minimal harm to polar bears and walruses. To
date, no major exploratory offshore-related oil spills have occurred on
the North Slope in either the Beaufort or Chukchi seas.
Historical large spills (>= 1,000 bbl, 42,000 gal, or 159,987 L)
associated with Alaskan oil and gas activities on the North Slope have
been production-related, and have occurred at production facilities or
pipelines connecting wells to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The
BOEM/BSEE estimates the chance of a large (> 1,000 bbl, 42,000 gal, or
159,987 L) oil spill from exploratory activities in the Chukchi Sea to
be low based on the types of spills recorded in the Beaufort Sea. The
greatest risk potential for oil spills from exploration activities
likely occurs with the marine vessels. From past experiences, BOEM/BSEE
believes these would 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,
[[Page 1967]]
handling of lubricants and liquid products, and general maintenance of
equipment). The likelihood of small spills occurring is higher than
large spills. However, because small spills would likely be contained
and remediated quickly, their potential impacts on walruses and polar
bears are expected to be low. There is a greater potential for large
spills in the Chukchi Sea region from drilling platforms. Exploratory
drilling platforms are required to have containment ability in case of
a blowout as part of their oil spill contingency plans, where the
likelihood of a large release during the 5-year timeframe of the
proposed regulations remains minimal.
Our analysis of oil and gas development potential and subsequent
risks was based on the BOEM/BSEE analysis that they conducted for the
Chukchi Sea lease sale (MMS 2007 and BOEMRE 2011), which is the best
available information. Due to the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) incident in
the Gulf of Mexico, offshore oil and gas activities are under increased
scrutiny. As such, BOEM/BSEE developed a very large oil spill analysis
(BOEMRE 2011-041; http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Environment/Environmental_Analysis/2011-041v1.pdf), where the potential impacts of a very large oil spill to
polar bears and Pacific walruses are described (sections IV.E.8 and
IV.E.11, respectively).
Of the several potential impacts to Pacific walruses and polar
bears from Industry activity in the Chukchi Sea, a very large oil spill
is of the most concern during the duration of the proposed regulations.
While not analyzed as part of standard operating conditions, we have
addressed the analysis of a very large oil spill due to the potential
that a spill of this magnitude could significantly impact Pacific
walruses and polar bears. During the next 5 years, offshore exploratory
drilling would be the predominant source of a very large oil spill in
the unlikely event one occurred.
Multiple factors have been examined to compare and contrast an oil
spill in the Arctic to that of Deepwater Horizon. In the event of a
spill in the Chukchi Sea favorable factors that could limit the impact
of a spill could include the drilling depth and the well pressures. The
Deepwater Horizon blowout occurred in 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of water with
well pressures of approximately 15,000 psi (approximately 103,421 kPa).
(Schmidt 2012). The Chukchi Sea sites are calculated to have drilling
depths of approximately 150 ft (46 m) and well pressures not to exceed
3,000 to 4,000 psi (approximately 20,684 to 27,579 kPa). With lower
drilling depths and well pressures, well sites in the Chukchi Sea will
be more accessible in the event of a spill. However, spill response and
cleanup of an oil spill in the Arctic has not been fully vetted to the
point where major concerns no longer remain.
The BOEM/BSEE has acknowledged difficulties in effectively
responding to oil spills in broken ice conditions, and The National
Academy of Sciences has determined that ``no current cleanup methods
remove more than a small fraction of oil spilled in marine waters,
especially in the presence of broken ice'' (NRC 2003). Current oil
spill responses in the Chukchi Sea include three main response
mechanisms, blowout prevention, in-situ burning, and chemical
dispersants (http://www.bsee.gov/OSRP/Shell-Chukchi-OSRP.aspx.). Each
response has associated strengths and weaknesses, where the success
would be mostly dependent on weather conditions. The BOEM/BSEE
advocates the use of non-mechanical methods of spill response, such as
in-situ burning, during periods when broken ice would hamper an
effective mechanical response (MMS 2008). An in-situ burn has the
potential to rapidly remove large quantities of oil and can be employed
when broken-ice conditions may preclude mechanical response. However,
oil spill cleanup in the broken ice and open water conditions that
characterize Arctic waters continues to be problematic.
In addition to the BOEM/BSEE analysis (BOEMRE 2011), policy and
management changes have occurred within the Department of the Interior
that are designed to increase the effectiveness of oversight activities
and further reduce the probability and effects of an accidental oil
spill (USDOI 2010). As a result, based on projections from BOEM/BSEE,
we anticipate that the potential for a significant oil spill would
remain small at the exploration stage; however, we recognize that
should a large spill occur, effective strategies for oil spill cleanup
in the broken ice and open-water conditions that characterize walrus
and polar bear habitat in the Chukchi Sea are limited.
In the event of a large oil spill, Service-approved response
strategies are in place to reduce the impact of a spill on walrus and
polar bear populations. Service response efforts will be conducted
under a 3-tier approach characterized as: (1) Primary response,
involving containment, dispersion, burning, or cleanup of oil; (2)
secondary response, involving hazing, herding, preventative capture/
relocation, or additional methods to remove or deter wildlife from
affected or potentially affected areas; and (3) tertiary response,
involving capture, cleaning, treatment, and release of wildlife. If the
decision is made to conduct response activities, primary and secondary
response options will be most applicable, as little evidence exists
that tertiary methods would be effective for cleaning oiled walruses or
polar bears.
In 2012, the Service and representatives from oil companies
operating in the Arctic conducted tests on polar bear fur to evaluate
appropriate oil cleaning techniques specific to oil grades extracted
from local Alaskan oil fields. The analysis is ongoing and will be
reported in the future. In addition, capturing and handling of adult
walruses is difficult and risky, as walruses do not react well to
anesthesia, and calves have little probability of survival in the wild
following capture and rehabilitation. In addition, many Alaska Native
organizations are opposed to releasing rehabilitated marine mammals
into the wild due to the potential for disease transmission.
All Industry projects would have project specific oil spill
contingency plans that would 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 exposure of polar bears and walruses, to oil
spills. Operators in the OCS are advised to review the Service's Oil
Spill Response Plan for Polar Bears in Alaska and the Pacific Walrus
Response Plan at http://www.fws.gov/Contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/FWSContingencyTOC.htm when developing spill-response tactics. Multiple
factors will be considered when responding to an oil spill, including:
The location of the spill; the magnitude of the spill; oil viscosity
and thickness; accessibility to spill site; spill trajectory; time of
year; weather conditions (i.e., wind, temperature, precipitation);
environmental conditions (i.e., presence and thickness of ice); number,
age, and sex of walruses and polar bears that are (or are likely to be)
affected; degree of contact; importance of affected habitat; cleanup
proposal; and likelihood of animal-human interactions.
As discussed above, large oil spills from Industry activities in
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas and coastal regions that would impact
walruses and polar bears have not yet occurred, although the
exploration of oil and gas has increased the potential for large
offshore oil spills. With limited background
[[Page 1968]]
information available regarding oil spills in the Arctic environment,
the outcome of such a spill is uncertain. For example, the extent of
impacts of a large oil spill as well as the types of equipment needed
and potential for effective cleanup would be greatly influenced by
seasonal weather and sea conditions, including temperature, winds, wave
action, and currents. Based on the experiences of cleanup efforts
following the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez oil spills, where
logistical support was readily available and wildlife resources were
nevertheless affected, spill response may be largely unsuccessful in
open-water conditions. Arctic conditions and the remoteness of
exploration activities would greatly complicate any spill response.
While it is extremely unlikely that a significant amount of oil
would be discharged into the environment by an exploratory program
during the proposed regulatory period, the Service is aware of the risk
that hydrocarbon exploration entails and that a large spill could occur
in the development and production of oil fields in the future, where
multiple operations incorporating pads and pipelines would increase the
possibility of oil spills and impacts to walruses and polar bears. The
Service will continue to work to minimize impacts to walruses and polar
bears from Industry activities, including reducing impacts of oil
spills.
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Subsistence
Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
The open-water season for oil and gas exploration activities
coincides with peak walrus hunting activities in the Chukchi Sea
region. 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. Effects to subsistence harvests would be
addressed in Industry POCs. The POCs are discussed in detail later in
this section.
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 (60 to 100 mi [96.5 to 161 km] from the coast) of these
communities. Disturbances associated with exploration activities could
also 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 and accelerated sea ice melt are
currently affecting hunting opportunities.
Measures to mitigate potential effects of oil and gas exploration
activities on marine mammal resources and subsistence use of those
resources were identified and developed through previous BOEM/BSEE
Lease Sale National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) review and analysis processes. The Final Lease Stipulations for
the Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea identify several
existing measures designed to mitigate potential effects of oil and gas
exploration activities on marine mammal resources and subsistence use
of those resources (http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Leasing/Regional_Leasing/Alaska_Region/Alaska_Lease_Sales/Sale_193/Stips.pdf).
Seven lease stipulations were selected by the Secretary of the
Interior in the Final Notice of Sale for Lease 193. These are:
Stipulation (1) Protection of Biological Resources; Stipulation (2)
Orientation Program; Stipulation (3) Transportation of Hydrocarbons;
Stipulation (4) Industry Site Specific Monitoring Program for Marine
Mammal Subsistence Resources; Stipulation (5) Conflict Avoidance
Mechanisms to Protect Subsistence Whaling and Other Marine Mammal
Subsistence Harvesting Activities; Stipulation (6) Pre-Booming
Requirements for Fuel Transfers; and Stipulation (7) Measures to
Minimize Effects to Spectacled and Steller's Eiders during Exploration
Activities.
Lease stipulations that would directly support minimizing impacts
to walruses, polar bears and the subsistence use of those animals
include Stipulations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Stipulation 1 allows BOEM/BSEE
to require the lessee to conduct biological surveys for previously
unidentified biological populations or habitats to determine the extent
and composition of the population or habitat. Stipulation 2 requires
that an orientation program be developed by the lessee to inform
individuals working on the project of the importance of environmental,
social, and cultural resources, including how to avoid disturbing
marine mammals and endangered species. Stipulation 4 provides for site-
specific monitoring programs, which 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, where this stipulation applies
specifically to the communities of Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, and
Point Hope. 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
important information to ongoing walrus and polar bear research and
monitoring efforts.
Stipulation 5 will help reduce potential conflicts between
subsistence hunters and proposed oil and gas exploration activities.
This stipulation is meant to 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. 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, BOEM/
BSEE may require additional mitigation measures as identified by NMFS
and the Service through MMPA authorizations. Finally, stipulation 6
will limit the potential of fuel spill into the environment by
requiring the fuel barge to be surrounded by an oil spill containment
boom during fuel transfer.
The BOEM/BSEE 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 ITRs. The Service has
incorporated these BOEM/BSEE lease sale stipulations into their
analysis of impacts to walruses and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea.
In addition to the existing BOEM/BSEE Final Lease Stipulations
described above, the Service has also developed additional mitigation
measures that would be implemented through these ITRs. These
stipulations are currently in place under our regulations published on
June 11, 2008 (73 FR 33212), and will also apply if we adopt these
proposed regulations. The following LOA stipulations, which would
mitigate potential impacts to subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting
from the proposed activities, apply to all incidental take
authorizations:
[[Page 1969]]
(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 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) Authorization will not be issued by the Service for activities
in the marine environment that occur within a 40-mile (64 km) 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 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 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 (24-km) separation must be maintained between all
active seismic survey vessels and/or drilling rigs/vessels/platforms to
mitigate cumulative impacts to resting, feeding, and migrating
walruses.
Plan of Cooperation (POC)
As a condition of incidental take authorization, and to ensure that
Industry activities do not impact subsistence opportunities for
communities within the geographic region covered by the proposed
regulations, any applicant requesting an LOA is required to present a
record of communication that reflects discussions with the Alaska
Native communities most likely affected by the activities. Prior to
issuance of an LOA, Industry must provide evidence to the Service that
an adequate POC has been coordinated with any affected subsistence
community (or, as appropriate, with the EWC, the ANC, and the NSB) if,
after community consultations, Industry and the community conclude that
increased mitigation and monitoring is necessary to minimize impacts to
subsistence resources. Where relevant, a POC will describe measures to
be taken to mitigate potential conflicts between the proposed activity
and subsistence hunting. If requested by Industry or the affected
subsistence community, the Service will review these plans and provide
guidance. The Service will reject POCs if they do not provide adequate
safeguards to ensure that any taking by Industry would not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of polar bears and
walruses for taking for subsistence uses.
Included as part of the POC process and the overall State and
Federal permitting process of Industry activities, Industry engages the
Alaska Native communities in numerous informational meetings. During
these community meetings, Industry must ascertain if community
responses indicate that impact to subsistence uses would occur as a
result of activities in the requested LOA. If community concerns
suggest that Industry activities may have an impact on the subsistence
uses of these species, the POC must provide the procedures on how
Industry will work with the affected Native communities and what
actions will be taken to avoid interfering with the availability of
polar bears and walruses for subsistence harvest.
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 BOEM/BSEE-issued operational
permits; (3) Service regulations proposed 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. 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 5-year timeframe of
the proposed regulations.
Analysis of Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry on Pacific Walruses and
Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea
Pacific Walrus
Recent offshore activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas from
the 1980s to the present highlight the type of documented impacts
offshore activities can have on walruses. More oil and gas 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 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.
1. Reported Observations
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 (Brueggeman et
al. 1990, 1991). 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 observations
demonstrated that: (1) Walrus distributions were closely linked with
pack ice; (2) pack ice was near active drill prospects for short time
periods; and (3) ice passing near active prospects contained relatively
few animals. Thus, the effects of the drilling operations on walruses
were short-term, temporary, and in a discrete area near the drilling
operations, and the portion of the walrus population affected was
small.
Between 2006 and 2011, monitoring by Industry during seismic
surveys in the Chukchi Sea resulted in 1,801 observed encounters
involving approximately 11,125 individual walruses (Table 3). We
classified the behavior of walruses associated with these encounters
as: (1) No reaction; (2) attention (watched vessel); (3) approach
(moved toward vessel); (4) avoidance (moved away from vessel at normal
speed); (5) escape or flee (moved away from vessel at high rate of
speed); and (6) unknown. These classifications were
[[Page 1970]]
based on MMO on-site determinations or their detailed notes on walrus
reactions that accompanied the observation. Data typically included the
behavior of an animal or group when initially spotted by the MMO and
any subsequent change in behavior associated with the approach and
passing of the vessel. This monitoring protocol was designed to detect
walruses far from the vessel and avoid and mitigate take, not to
estimate the long-term impacts of the encounters on individual animals.
Table 3--Summary of Pacific Walrus Responses to Encounters With Seismic Survey Vessels in the Chukchi Sea Oil
and Gas Lease Sale Area 193 in 2006-2010 as Recorded by On-Board Marine Mammal Observers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean (SE) Mean (SE \a\)
Walrus reaction Number of Number of individuals/ meters from
encounters individuals encounter vessel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None............................................ 955 7,310 8 (1.7) 710 (24)
Attention....................................... 285 1,419 5 (1.9) 446 (29)
Approach........................................ 47 89 2 (0.3) 395 (50)
Avoidance....................................... 435 940 2 (0.1) 440 (26)
Flee............................................ 47 170 4 (0.9) 382 (56)
Unknown......................................... 32 1,197 37 (29.0) 558 (78)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total or overall mean....................... 1,801 11,125 6 (1.1) 582 (15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard error.
Nonetheless, the data do provide insight as to the short-term
responses of walruses to vessel encounters.
Descriptive statistics were estimated based on both the number of
encounters and number of individuals involved (Table 3). For both
metrics (encounters and individuals), the most prevalent behavioral
response was no response (53 and 66 percent, respectively) (Table 3);
followed by attention or avoidance (8 and 24 percent combined,
respectively), with the fewest animals exhibiting a flight response (3
and 2 percent, respectively). Based on these observation data, it is
likely that relatively few animals were encountered during these
operations each year (less than 2 percent of a minimum population of
129,000) and that of those encountered, walrus responses to vessel
encounters were minimal. The most vigorous observed reactions of
walruses to the vessels was a flight response, which is within their
normal range of activity. Walruses vigorously flee predators such as
killer whales and polar bears. However, unlike a passing ship, those
encounters are likely to last for some time causing more stress as
predators often spend time pursuing, testing, and manipulating
potential prey before initiating an attack. As most observed animals
exhibited minimal responses to Industry activity and relatively few
animals exhibited a flight response we do not anticipate that
interactions would impact survival or reproduction of walrus at the
individual or population level.
We do not know the length of time or distance traveled by walruses
that approached, avoided, or fled from the vessels before resuming
normal activities. However, it is likely that those responses lasted
less than 30 minutes and covered less than 805 m (0.5 mi).
MMO data collected in 2012 for 48 walrus observations indicate that
walrus encounter times ranged from less than 1 to 31 minutes, averaging
3 minutes. The shortest duration encounters usually involved single
animals that did not react to the vessel or dove and were not seen
again. The longest duration encounter occurred when a vessel was moving
through broken ice and encountered several groups of walruses in rapid
succession. These data indicate that most encounters were of single
animals where behavioral response times were limited to short
durations.
During 2006-2011, observations from Industry activities in the
Beaufort Sea indicate that, in most cases, walruses appeared
undisturbed by human interactions. Walrus have hauled out on the armor
of offshore drilling islands or coastal facilities and exhibited mild
reactions (raise head and observe) to helicopter noise. There is no
evidence that there were any physical effects or impacts to these
individual walruses based on the observed interactions with Industry. A
more detailed account of Industry-generated noise effects can be found
in the Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears, Pacific Walrus, 1. Disturbance from Noise
section.
2. Cumulative Impacts
The Status of the Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)
(Garlich-Miller et al. 2011) prepared by the Service (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/pdf/review_2011.pdf) and Jay et
al. (2012) describe natural and human factors that could contribute to
cumulative effects that could impact walruses into the future. Factors
other than oil and gas activities that could affect walruses within the
5-year period of these proposed regulations include climate change,
harvest, and increased shipping, all of which are discussed below.
A. 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. The record minimum
sea ice extent occurred in September 2012 with 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009,
2010, and 2011 ice extent close to the record low and substantially
below the 20-year mean (NSIDC 2012). 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. Observed impacts to walruses as a
result of diminishing sea ice cover include: A northward shift in range
and declines in Bering Sea haulout use; an increase in the speed of the
spring migration; earlier formation and longer duration of Chukchi Sea
coastal haulouts; and increased vulnerability to predation and
disturbance while at Chukchi Sea coastal haulouts, resulting in
increased mortality rates among younger animals. Postulated effects
include: Premature separation of females and dependent calves;
reductions in the prey base;
[[Page 1971]]
declines in animal health and condition; increased interactions with
development activities; population decline; and the potential for the
harvest to become unsustainable. Future studies investigating walrus
distributions, population status and trends, harvest sustainability,
and habitat use patterns in the Chukchi Sea are important for
responding to walrus conservation and management issues associated with
environmental and habitat changes.
B. 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 Russian Federation have ranged from 2,300 to 9,500 animals
per year. Notable harvest peaks occurred during 1930 to 1960 (4,500 to
9,500 per year) and in the 1980s (7,000 to 16,000 per year). Commercial
hunting continued in the Russian Federation until 1991, under a quota
system of up to 3,000 animals per year. Since 1992, the harvest of
walruses has been limited to the subsistence catch of coastal
communities in Alaska and Chukotka. Harvest levels through the 1990s
ranged from approximately 4,100 to 7,600 animals per year and 3,800 to
6,800 in the 2000s. As described in detail earlier in the Subsistence
Use and Harvest Patterns of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears section,
recent harvest levels are lower than historic highs. The Service is
currently working to assess population size and sustainable harvest
rates.
C. 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
Northern Sea Route may increase 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.
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. Research by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and the Chukotka Branch of the Pacific
Fisheries Research Center examining walrus habitat use patterns in the
Chukchi Sea is beginning to provide useable results (Jay 2012, pers.
comm.). In addition, the Service is beginning to develop and test some
methods for a genetic mark-recapture project to estimate walrus
population size and trends and demographic parameters. 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.
Evaluation of Documented Impacts to Pacific Walrus
The proposed projects, including the most extensive activities,
such as 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 the 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, with the exception of the Hanna Shoal
area, where we can reliably predict that many walruses will remain even
after the ice melts. Industry activities that occur near coastal
haulouts, near Hanna Shoal, or intersect travel corridors between
haulouts and Hanna Shoal would require close monitoring and additional
special mitigation procedures, such as seasonal exclusions (e.g., July
to September) of Industry activities from Hanna Shoal and routing
vessel traffic and aircraft flights around walrus travel corridors.
Required monitoring and mitigation measures, designed to minimize
interactions between authorized projects and concentrations of resting
or feeding walruses, are expected to limit interactions and trigger
real time consultations if needed. 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 walrus population from past, present,
and future activities that are reasonably likely to occur within the 5-
year period covered by these proposed regulations.
Polar Bear
Information regarding interactions between oil and gas activities
and polar bears in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas has been collected for
several decades. This analysis concentrates on the Chukchi Sea
information collected through regulatory requirements and is useful in
predicting how polar bears are likely to be affected by the proposed
activities.
To date, most impacts to polar bears from Industry operations in
the Chukchi Sea have been temporary disturbance events, some of which
have led to deterrence events. Monitoring efforts by Industry required
under previous regulations for the incidental take of polar bears
documented various types of interactions between polar bears and
Industry.
1. Reported Observations
From 1989 to 1991, Shell Western E&P conducted drilling operations
in the Chukchi Sea. A total of 110 polar bears were recorded from
aerial surveys and from support and ice management vessels during the 3
years. In 1989, 18 bears were sighted in the pack ice during the
monitoring programs associated with the drilling program. In 1990, 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 5.5 mi)
active prospects, and the remainder were considerably beyond the
drilling operation (15 to 40 km or 9.3 to 24.8 mi). These bears
responded to the drilling or icebreaking operations by approaching (two
bears), watching (nine bears), slowly moving away (seven
[[Page 1972]]
bears), or ignoring (five bears) the activities; response was not
evaluated for two bears. During the 1991 drilling program, 64 polar
bears were observed on the pack ice, and one was observed swimming
south of the ice edge. The researchers of the 1990 monitoring program
for the Shell exploration concluded that: (1) Polar bear distributions
were closely linked to the pack ice; (2) the pack ice was near the
active prospects for a brief time; and (3) the ice passing near active
prospects contained few animals. These data were collected when sea ice
in the region was more prevalent than today, and we anticipate that
current and future operations will observe fewer bears; however, we
expect that behaviorally the bears observed will react similarly.
Between 2006 and 2011, 16 offshore projects were issued incidental
take authority for polar bears: Seven seismic surveys; four shallow
hazards and site clearance surveys; and five environmental studies,
including ice observation flights and onshore and offshore
environmental baseline surveys. Observers associated with these 16
projects documented 62 individual bears in 47 different observations.
These observations and bear responses are discussed below.
The majority of the bears were observed on land (50 percent; 31 of
62 polar bears). Twenty-one bears (34 percent) were recorded on the
ice, mainly in unconsolidated ice on ice floes, and 10 bears (16
percent) were observed swimming in the water. Fifty-seven percent of
the polar bears (35 of 62 bears) were observed from vessels, while 35
percent (22 of 62 bears) were sighted from aerial surveys and 8 percent
(5 of 62 bears) were observed from the ground.
Of the 62 polar bears documented, 32 percent (20 of 62 bears) of
the observations were recorded as Level B harassment takes, where the
bears exhibited short-term, temporary reactions to the conveyance,
vessel, plane, or vehicle, such as moving away from the conveyance. No
polar bears were intentionally deterred. Sixty-five percent of the
bears (40 of 62 bears) exhibited no behavioral reactions to the
conveyance, while the reactions of 3 percent of the bears (2 of 62
bears) were unknown (not observed or not recorded).
Most polar bears were observed during secondary or support
activities, such as aerial surveys or transiting between project areas.
These activities were associated with a primary project, such as a
seismic operation. No polar bears were observed during active seismic
operations.
Additionally, other activities have occurred in the Chukchi Sea
region that have resulted in reports of polar bear sightings to the
Service. 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. All
bears were observed on the ice between July 21 and August 19. The
closest point of approach distances of bears from the Healy ranged from
780 m to 2.5 km (853 yards [yd] to 1.5 mi). One bear was observed
approximately 575 m (628.8 yd) from a helicopter conducting ice
reconnaissance. Four of the groups exhibited possible reactions to the
helicopter or vessel, suggesting that disturbances from offshore vessel
operations when they occur are short-term and limited to minor changes
in behavior.
In 2007, a female bear and her cub were observed approximately 100
meters (110 yd) from a drill pad at the Intrepid exploration drilling
site, located on the Chukchi Sea coast south of Barrow. The bear did
not appear concerned about the activity and eventually the female
changed her direction of movement and left the area.
Additional information exists on Industry and polar bear encounters
from the Beaufort Sea (76 FR 47010; August 3, 2011). Documented impacts
on polar bears by 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 in response to
changing ice conditions.
Annual monitoring reports from Industry activities and community
observations in the Beaufort Sea indicate that fall storms, combined
with reduced sea ice, force bears to concentrate along the coastline
(between August to October) 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. During 2011, in the Beaufort Sea region,
companies observed 237 polar bears in 140 sightings on land and in the
nearshore marine environment. Of the 237 bears observed in 2011, 44
bears (19 percent of the total observed) were recorded as Level B takes
as they were deterred (hazed) away from facilities and people. Industry
monitoring reports indicate that 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 as 50
percent of the bear encounters between 2006 and 2011 were documented in
the onshore habitat.
While no lethal take of polar bears has occurred in the Chukchi
Sea, a lethal take associated with Industry occurred at the Beaufort
Sea Endicott facility in 2011, when a security guard mistakenly used a
crackershell in place of a bean bag deterrent round and killed the bear
during a deterrence action. Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal
takes by Industry were rare. Since 1968, there have been two documented
cases, one in the winter of 1968-1969, and one in 1990, of lethal take
of polar bears associated with oil and gas activities; in both of these
instances, the lethal take was reported to be in defense of human life.
2. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts of oil and gas activities are assessed, in part,
through the information we gain in monitoring reports, which are a
required component of each operator's LOA under the authorizations. We
have over 20 years of monitoring reports, and the information on all
incidental and intentional polar bear interactions provides a
comprehensive history of past effects of Industry activities on polar
bears. We use the information on previous impacts to evaluate potential
impacts from existing and future Industry activities and facilities.
Additional information used in our cumulative effects assessment
includes: Service, USGS, and other polar bear research and data;
traditional knowledge of polar bear habitat use; anecdotal
observations; and professional judgment.
While the number of LOAs being requested does not represent the
potential for direct impact to polar bears, they do offer an index as
to the effort and type of Industry activity that is currently being
conducted. LOA trend data also help the Service track progress on
various projects as they move through the stages of oil field
development. An increase in Industry projects across the Arctic has the
ability to increase bear-human interactions.
The Polar Bear Status Review describes cumulative effects of oil
and gas development on polar bears in Alaska (see pages 175 to 181 of
the status review). This document can be found at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm. The status review
concentrated on oil and gas
[[Page 1973]]
development in the Beaufort Sea because of the established presence of
Industry in the Beaufort Sea. The Service believes the conclusions of
the status review would apply to Industry activities in the Chukchi Sea
during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations as the
exploratory activities in the Beaufort Sea are similar to those being
conducted and 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 timeframe of the proposed regulations
would be limited to exploration activities, such as seismic, drilling,
and support activities.
(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 would use 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 would not occur during the prescribed
timeframe of the proposed regulations 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 proposed regulations. Oil spills as a
result of exploratory drilling 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 seas region 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.'' The Service is
currently working to minimize the impacts of climate change on its
trust species. The implementation of incidental take regulations is one
effective way to address and minimize impacts to polar bears.
(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.'' Current studies in the Chukchi Sea are examining polar
bear habitat use and distribution, reproduction, and survival relative
to a changing sea ice environment.
Climate change, predominantly through sea ice decline, will alter
polar bear habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended duration
of open water, will 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 water swimming. Demographic effects that may
be influenced by climate change include changes in prey availability to
polar bears, a potential reduction in the access to prey, and changes
in seal productivity.
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 would be effective in minimizing
any additional effects attributed to seasonal shifts in distributions
of denning polar bears during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed
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. 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.
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://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/esa.htm#listing.
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.
The proposed activities (drilling operations, seismic surveys, and
support operations) identified by the petitioners are likely to result
in some incremental cumulative effects to polar bears during the 5-year
timeframe of the proposed regulations. 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 timeframe of the proposed regulations would
result in negligible effects on the bear population.
Evaluation of Documented Impacts on Polar Bears
Monitoring results from Industry, analyzed by the Service, indicate
that little to no short-term impacts on polar bears have resulted from
oil and gas activities. We evaluated both subtle and acute impacts
likely to occur from industrial activity, and we determined that all
direct and indirect effects, including cumulative effects, of
industrial activities have not adversely affected the species through
effects on rates of recruitment or survival. Based on past monitoring
reports, the level of interaction between Industry and polar bears has
been minimal. Additional information, such as subsistence harvest
levels and incidental observations of polar bears near shore, provides
evidence that these populations have not been adversely affected. For
the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations, we anticipate the
level of oil and gas Industry interactions with polar bears would
likely increase in response to more bears on shore and more activity
along the coast; however we do not anticipate significant impacts on
bears to occur.
Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Small Numbers Determination
As discussed in the ``Biological Information'' section, the dynamic
nature of sea ice habitats influences seasonal and annual distribution
and abundance of polar bears and walruses
[[Page 1974]]
in the specified geographical region (eastern Chukchi Sea). The
following analysis demonstrates that, if we adopt the regulations as
proposed, only small numbers of walruses and polar bears are likely to
be taken incidental to the described Industry activities. This analysis
is based upon known distribution patterns and habitat use of walruses
and polar bears.
Pacific Walrus
The Service has based its small numbers determination on an
examination of the best available information concerning the range of
this species and its habitat use patterns (see Biological Information
for additional details); information regarding the siting, timing,
scope, and footprint of proposed activities (see Description of
Activities for additional details); information regarding monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures designed to avoid and mitigate
incidental take of walruses during authorized activities (see Section
18.118 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements in the
Proposed Regulation Promulgation section for additional details); and
the 193 lease sale stipulations by the Mineral Management Service (now
BOEM in February 2008 regarding protection of biological resources. The
objective of this analysis is to determine whether or not the proposed
Industry activities described in the ITR petition are likely to impact
small numbers of individual animals.
The specified geographic region covered by this request includes
the waters (State of Alaska and OCS) and bed of the Chukchi Sea, as
well as terrestrial habitat up to 40 km (25 mi) inland (Figure 1). The
marine environment and terrestrial coastal haulouts are considered
walrus habitat for this analysis. The petition specifies that offshore
exploration activities would be limited to the July 1 to November 30
open-water season to avoid seasonal pack ice. Furthermore, the petition
specifies that onshore or near shore activities would not occur in the
vicinity of coastal walrus haulouts. Oil and gas activities anticipated
and considered in our analysis include: (1) Offshore exploration
drilling; (2) offshore 3D and 2D seismic surveys; (3) shallow hazards
surveys; (4) other geophysical surveys, such as ice gouge, strudel
scour, and bathymetry surveys; (5) geotechnical surveys; (6) onshore
and offshore environmental studies; and (7) associated support
activities for the aforementioned activities. A full description of
these activities can be found in this document in the Description of
Activities section.
Distribution of Walruses During the Open Water Season
During the July to November open-water season, the Pacific walrus
population ranges well beyond the boundaries of the specified
geographic region (Figure 1). Based on population surveys, haulout
monitoring studies, and satellite tracking studies, the population
generally occurs in three areas: The majority of males remain in the
Bering Sea outside of the specified geographic region, and juveniles,
adult females, and calves are distributed both in the western Chukchi
Sea in the vicinity of Wrangel and Herald Islands in Russian waters,
and another subset of females and young are in the eastern Chukchi Sea,
which includes the specified geographic region, with high densities in
the Hanna Shoal area (Fay 1982; Jay et al. 2012; Jay et al. pers.
comm.). Therefore, the animals in the northeast Chukchi Sea that could
potentially be influenced by Industry activities represent only a
portion of the overall population.
Though the specified geographic region of these regulations (Figure
1) includes areas of potential walrus habitat, the actual area of
Industry activities occurring within this region would be relatively
small. The entire Chukchi Sea is approximately 600,000 km\2\ (231,660
mi\2\). The area of the specified geographic region (Figure 1) is
approximately 240,000 km\2\ (92,664 mi\2\), and the area covered by
Lease Sale 193 offered in 2006 was approximately 138,000 km\2\ (53,282
mi\2\), with currently active leases covering approximately 11,163
km\2\ (4,310 mi\2\). The Chukchi Sea is only a portion of the overall
Pacific walrus range, and though most of it contains suitable walrus
habitat, some portions are not suitable (e.g., where water depths
exceed 100 m). However, if we assume that the entire 600,000 km\2\
(231,660 mi\2\) of the Chukchi Sea is utilized by walruses, then the
specified geographic region (Figure 1) covers approximately 40 percent,
Lease Sale 193 area covers approximately 23 percent, and current active
leases cover approximately 2 percent of the Chukchi Sea, respectively.
In any single year, and over the 5-year period of the proposed
regulations, Industry activity would only occur on a portion of the
active lease area. For example, AOGA indicates in its petition that one
seismic survey would occur each year during the 5-year period of the
proposed regulations. AOGA further estimates that a typical marine 3D
seismic survey is expected to ensonify approximately 1680 km\2\ (649
mi\2\) of sea floor. This equates to roughly 15 percent of the active
lease area, 0.7 percent of the specified geographic region (Figure 1),
and 0.28 percent of the Chukchi Sea per year, respectively.
We anticipate that Industry activities would impact a relatively
small proportion of the potential walrus habitat in the specified
geographical region at any given time, whether or not the habitat is
occupied by walruses. The narrow scope and footprint of activities that
would occur in any given year limits the potential for Industry to
interact with the subset of the walruses that may be distributed in the
eastern Chukchi Sea during the open water season.
Habitat Use Patterns in the Specified Geographic Region
The subset of the overall walrus population residing in the eastern
Chukchi Sea can be widespread and abundant depending on ice conditions
and distribution. Walruses typically migrate into the region in early
June along lead systems that form along the coast. Walruses summering
in the eastern Chukchi Sea exhibit strong selection for sea ice
habitats. Previous aerial survey efforts in the area found that 80 to
96 percent of walruses were closely associated with sea ice habitats,
and that the number of walruses observed in open water habitats
decreased significantly with distance from the pack ice (Gilbert 1999).
The distribution of the subset of the walrus population that occurs
in the specified geographic region (Figure 1) each year is primarily
influenced by the distribution and extent of seasonal pack ice, which
is expected to vary substantially both seasonally and annually. In June
and July, scattered groups of walruses are typically associated with
loose pack ice habitats between Icy Cape and Point Barrow (Fay 1982;
Gilbert et al. 1992). Recent walrus telemetry studies investigating
foraging patterns suggest that many walruses focus foraging efforts
near Hanna Shoal in the eastern Chukchi Sea, northwest of Point Barrow
(Jay et al. pers. comm.). Recent walrus telemetry studies investigating
foraging patterns suggest that many walruses focus foraging efforts
near Hanna Shoal in the eastern Chukchi Sea, northwest of Point Barrow
(Jay et al. pers. comm.). In August and September, concentrations of
animals tend to be in areas of unconsolidated pack ice, usually within
100 km (62 mi) of the leading edge of the ice pack (Gilbert 1999).
Individual groups occupying unconsolidated pack ice
[[Page 1975]]
typically range from fewer than 10 to more than 1,000 animals (Gilbert
1999; Ray et al. 2006). In August and September, the edge of the pack
ice generally retreats north to approximately 71[deg] N latitude (the
majority of active lease blocks are between 71 and 72[deg] N), but in
light ice years can retreat north of the continental shelf (Douglas
2010), about 73 to 75[deg] N. Sea ice normally reaches its minimum
(northern) extent in September, and ice begins to reform rapidly in
October and November. Walruses typically migrate out of the eastern
Chukchi Sea in October in advance of the developing sea ice (Fay 1982;
Jay et al. pers. comm.).
Sea ice has historically persisted in the Chukchi Sea region
through the entire year although the extent of sea ice cover over
continental shelf areas during the summer and fall has been highly
variable. Over the past decade, sea ice has begun to retreat beyond
shallow continental shelf waters in late summer. For example, in 5 of
the last 8 years (2004 to 2012), the continental shelf waters of the
eastern Chukchi Sea have become ice free in late summer, for a period
ranging from a few weeks up to 2 months. Climate-based models suggest
that the observed trend of rapid ice loss from continental shelf
regions of the Chukchi Sea is expected to persist, and perhaps
accelerate in the future (Douglas 2010).
Based on telemetry studies, during periods of minimal or no-ice
cover over continental shelf regions of the eastern Chukchi Sea, we
expect that most walruses in that subset of the population will either
migrate out of the region beyond the scope of Industry activities in
pursuit of more favorable ice habitats (i.e., the western Chukchi Sea),
or relocate to coastal haulouts where they can rest on land between
foraging excursions (Jay et al. pers. comm.). Walruses occupying
coastal haulouts along the Chukchi Sea coast tend to aggregate in large
dense groups, which are vulnerable to disturbances that can result in
trampling injuries and mortalities (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). The
AOGA petition specifically notes that Industry activities would not
occur near coastal walrus haulouts. In addition, OCS Lease Sale Area
193 excluded a 40-km (25-mi) coastal buffer zone from the lease area to
protect sensitive coastal habitats and mitigate potential interactions
with subsistence hunting activities along the coast. We expect that a
similar coastal buffer zone would be included in future lease sales in
the region. Moreover, required mitigation measures for authorized
activities pursuant to the proposed ITRs expressly forbid operating
near coastal walrus haulouts (see mitigation measures below). For
example, all support vessels and aircraft would be required to maintain
a 1-mile buffer area around groups of walruses hauled out on land.
Because of these limitations on authorized activities near coastal
walrus haulouts, we do not expect that any takes would occur at coastal
haulouts from Industry activities.
We expect that the density of walruses in offshore, open water
environments, where most exploration activities are expected to occur,
will be relatively low. Based on previous aerial survey efforts in the
region (Gilbert 1999) and satellite tracking of walrus distributions
and movement patterns in the region (Jay et al. pers. comm.), we expect
that most walruses in the subset of the overall population in the
specified geographic region will be closely associated with broken pack
ice during the open water season. This would limit the exposure of
walruses to seismic surveys and exploratory drilling operations, where
we expect them to avoid these areas of broken ice cover in order to
avoid damaging their equipment. Furthermore, during the open water
season, walruses could also occupy coastal haulouts when ice
concentrations are low in offshore regions.
Telemetry studies investigating the foraging behavior of walruses
at coastal haulouts indicate that most animals forage within 30 to 60
km (19 to 37 mi) of coastal haulouts (Fischbach et al. 2010), primarily
within the 40-km (25-mi) coastal buffer, which is closed to seismic
surveys and drilling. However, some animals appear to make long
foraging excursions from coastal haulouts to offshore feeding areas
near Hanna Shoal (about 180 km, 112 mi from Point Lay, AK) (Jay et al.
pers. comm.). This movement pattern is also apparent based on walrus
vocalizations recorded at buoys placed throughout the area in 2010
(Delarue et al. 2012). Given this observed behavior, we expect that the
density of walruses in the Hanna Shoal region could be relatively high
compared with other offshore regions, even during periods of minimal
sea ice cover. Most of the lease sale blocks in the Hanna Shoal region
are currently not leased. Based on the significant biological value of
Hanna Shoal to walrus foraging, and the likelihood of encountering
large groups of foraging walruses in that area through September, we do
not anticipate issuing any LOAs for seismic or drilling activity in the
Hanna Shoal region during the 5-year span of these proposed
regulations. In recognition of the biological significance of Hanna
Shoal, BOEM has funded an environmental study of the area to better
understand the resources available there. The BOEM study will be used,
in part, by BOEM to determine if it would be appropriate to include or
exclude areas within Hanna Shoal in future lease sales.
Authorized Industry activities occurring near Hanna Shoal could
potentially encounter groups of walruses moving from other areas,
including coastal haulouts. The timing and movement routes between
coastal haulouts and offshore foraging areas are not known, and are
likely to vary from year to year. Although it is difficult to predict
where groups of moving or feeding walruses are likely to be encountered
in offshore open water environments, monitoring requirements and
adaptive mitigation measures are expected to limit interactions with
groups of walruses encountered in open water habitats. For example, all
authorized support vessels must employ MMOs to monitor for the presence
of walruses and other marine mammals. Vessel operators are required to
take every precaution to avoid interactions with concentrations of
feeding or moving walruses, and must maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi)
operational exclusion zone around walrus groups encountered in open
water. Although monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation
measures are not expected to completely eliminate interactions with
walruses in open water habitats, they are expected to limit takes to
relatively small numbers of animals.
In summary, based upon scientific knowledge of the habitat use
patterns of walruses in the specified region, we expect the number of
animals using pelagic waters during the operating season to be small
relative to the number of animals using habitats preferred by and more
favorable to walruses (i.e., pack ice habitats and/or coastal haulouts
and near-shore environments). Industry would not be operating in areas
with extensive ice cover due to their own operating limitations, and
therefore Industry activities would avoid preferred walrus habitats.
Further regulatory restrictions, such as stipulations on activities
near haulouts, would insure that Industry activities would not occur in
or near those preferred walrus habitat areas. Moreover, we do not
anticipate issuing any LOAs for seismic and drilling activities in the
Hanna Shoal area.
Most of the proposed oil and gas exploration activity is projected
to occur in offshore areas under open water conditions where densities
of walruses are expected to be low. Support vessels
[[Page 1976]]
and aircraft transiting through areas of broken ice habitat where
densities of walruses may be higher would be required to employ
monitoring and adaptive mitigation measures intended to reduce
interactions with walruses. Accordingly, in consideration of the
habitat characteristics where most exploration activities are expected
to occur (open-water environments) and specific mitigation measures
designed to reduce potential interactions with walruses and other
marine mammals, we expect that interactions would be limited to
relatively small numbers of animals compared to the number of walruses
in the specified geographic region as well as the overall population.
The Use of Monitoring Requirements and Mitigation Measures
Holders of a LOA must use methods and conduct activities in a
manner that minimizes adverse impacts on walruses to the greatest
extent practicable. Monitoring programs are required to inform
operators of the presence of marine mammals and sea ice. Adaptive
management responses based on real-time monitoring information
(described in these proposed regulations) would be used to avoid or
minimize interactions with walruses. Adaptive management approaches,
such as temporal or spatial limitations in response to the presence of
walruses in a particular place or time, or in response to the
occurrence of walruses engaged in a particularly sensitive activity,
such as feeding, would be used to avoid or minimize interactions with
walruses. A full description of the mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements associated with LOAs under these proposed
regulations can be found in Section 18.118 Mitigation, Monitoring, and
Reporting Requirements in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section.
Some of the mitigation measures expected to limit interactions with
walruses would include:
1. Industry operations are not permitted in the geographic region
until July 1. This condition is intended to allow walruses the
opportunity to disperse from the confines of the spring lead system and
minimize Industry interactions with subsistence walrus hunters.
2. Vessels must be staffed with MMOs to alert crew of the presence
of walruses and initiate adaptive mitigation responses when walruses
are encountered.
3. Vessels should take all practical measures (i.e., reduce speed,
change course heading) to maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi) operational
exclusion zone around groups of 12 or more walruses encountered in the
water. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate members
of a group of walruses.
4. Set back distances have been established between walruses and
vessels to minimize impacts and limit disturbance, 805 m (0.5 mi) when
walruses are observed on ice and in the water; 1,610 m (1 mi) when
observed on land.
5. Set back distances have been established between walruses and
aircraft to minimize impacts and limit disturbance. No fixed-wing
aircraft may operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within
805 m of walrus groups observed on ice, or within 1,610 m (1 mi) of
walrus groups observed on land. No rotary winged aircraft (helicopter)
may operate at an altitude lower than 914 m (3,000 ft) elevation within
a lateral distance of 1,610 m (1 mi) of walrus groups observed on land.
These operating conditions are intended to avoid and mitigate the
potential for walruses to be flushed from ice floes or land based
haulouts.
6. Operators must maintain a minimum spacing of 24 km (15 mi)
between all active seismic-source vessels and/or exploratory drilling
operations to avoid significant synergistic or cumulative effects from
multiple oil and gas exploration activities on foraging or migrating
walruses.
7. Any offshore exploration activity expected to include the
production of downward-directed, 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.
8. Trained MMOs must establish acoustically verified exclusion
zones for walruses surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received
level would be >= 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa and >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa in order
to monitor incidental take.
9. Whenever 12 or more walruses are detected within the
acoustically verified 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa disturbance zone ahead of or
perpendicular to the seismic vessel track, operators must 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 operators cannot
begin powering up the seismic airgun array until it can be established
that there are no walrus aggregations within the 160-dB disturbance
zone based upon ship course, direction to walruses, and distance from
last sighting.
These proposed monitoring requirements and mitigation measures are
not expected to completely eliminate the potential for walruses to be
taken incidental to proposed Industry activities in the region;
however, they are expected to significantly reduce the number of takes
and the number of walruses affected. By substantially limiting the
season of operation and by requiring buffer areas around groups of
walruses on land, ice, and in open water areas, we conclude that
mitigation measures would significantly reduce the number of walruses
incidentally taken by Industry activities.
Pacific Walrus Small Number Conclusion
Based upon our review of the best scientific information available,
we conclude that proposed Industry activities described in the AOGA
petition would impact a relatively small number of walruses both within
the specified geographical region and at the broader population scale.
The information available includes the range, distribution, and habitat
use patterns of Pacific walruses during the operating season, the
relatively small footprint and scope of authorized projects both within
the specified geographic region and on a broader scale within the known
range of this species during the open water season, and consideration
of monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation measures intended to
avoid and limit the number of takes to walruses encountered through the
course of authorized activities.
Polar Bears
Distribution of Polar Bears During the Open Water Season
The number of polar bears occupying the specified geographical
region during the open water exploration season, when the majority of
Industry activities are anticipated to occur, is expected to be smaller
than the number of animals distributed throughout their range. Polar
bears range well beyond the boundaries of the proposed geographic
region of the ITRs and 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 the Russian Federation during the open-
water season. Concurrently, polar bears from the SBS population
predominantly utilize the central Beaufort Sea region of the Alaskan
and Canadian Arctic during this period. These areas are well outside of
the geographic region of these
[[Page 1977]]
proposed regulations. Movement data and habitat use analysis of bears
from the CS and SBS populations suggest that they utilize the ice
habitat as a platform to survive, by feeding and resting. As the ice
recedes, the majority of the bears ``move'' with it. A small portion of
bears can be associated with the coast during the open-water season. In
addition, open water is not selected habitat for polar bears and bears
observed in the water likely try to move to a more stable habitat
platform, such as sea ice or land.
As stated earlier, though the specified geographic region described
for these proposed regulations (Figure 1) includes areas of potential
polar bear habitat, the actual area of Industry activity occurring
within this region would be relatively small. The entire Chukchi Sea is
approximately 600,000 km\2\ (231,660 mi\2\). The area of the specified
geographic region (Figure 1) is approximately 240,000 km\2\ (92,664
mi\2\), the lease sale 193 area offered for leases was approximately
138,000 km\2\ (53,282 mi\2\) with active leases of approximately 11,163
km\2\ (4,310 mi\2\). The Chukchi Sea is only a portion of the overall
polar bear range and though most of it contains suitable polar bear
habitat, some portions are not suitable. However, if we conservatively
assume that the entire approximately 600,000 km\2\ (231,660 mi\2\) of
the Chukchi Sea is utilized by polar bears, then the specified
geographic region (Figure 1) covers approximately 40 percent, the lease
sale 193 area approximately 23 percent, and current active leases are
approximately 2 percent of that area, respectively. In any single year,
and over the 5-year period of the proposed regulations, Industry
activity would occur only on a portion of the active lease area.
Additionally, polar bear critical habitat encompasses 519,401 km\2\
(200,541 mi\2\) of offshore and onshore habitat in the Chukchi Sea and
Beaufort Sea regions. The area of individual marine activities is
expected to comprise a small percentage of the lease area. Vessel
operations would be operating in habitats where polar bear densities
are expected to be lowest, that is, open water. Although it is
impossible to predict with certainty the number of 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 would occur (open-water environments) and based on
scientific knowledge and observation of the species, only small numbers
of polar bears are expected to contact Industry operations, and of
those, only a small percentage will exhibit behavioral responses
constituting take.
Likewise, the number of polar bears expected to be incidentally
taken by Industry activities is a small proportion of the species'
abundance. The estimate for Level B incidental take of polar bears is
based on the past monitoring data from 2006 to 2011; the timing (open-
water season) of the primary, off-shore Industry activities in the
Chukchi Sea region; and the limited use of the pelagic environment by
polar bears during the open water season. The estimated total Level B
incidental take for polar bears is expected to be no more than 25
animals per year. This is a conservative estimate which takes into
account that between 2006 to 2011, only 20 polar bears of the 62 polar
bears documented by Industry exhibited behavioral responses equivalent
to Level B harassment takes (3.3 Level B takes of bears/year). In
addition, this number is less than 1 percent of the estimated combined
populations of the CS and SBS polar bear stocks (approximately 2,000
and 1,500, respectively). This estimate reflects the low densities of
polar bears occurring in the Alaska region of the Chukchi Sea during
the open water period. The majority of interactions between polar bears
and Industry are expected to occur near the pack ice edge habitat and
in the terrestrial environment, where this estimate anticipates a
potential increase of bears interacting with terrestrial facilities
through the duration of the proposed regulatory period (2013 to 2018).
Habitat Use Patterns in the Specified Geographic Region
Within the specified geographic region, the number of polar bears
utilizing open water habitats, where the primary activity (offshore
exploration operations) would occur, is expected to be small relative
to the number of animals utilizing pack ice habitats or coastal areas.
Polar bears are capable of swimming long distances across open water
(Pagano et al. 2012). However, polar bears remain closely associated
with primarily sea ice (where food availability is high) during the
open water season (Durner et al. 2004). A limited number of bears could
also be found in coastal areas. We expect the number of 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 haulouts and near shore environments).
In addition, a small portion of terrestrial habitat used by polar
bears may be exposed to Industry activities. As detailed in the
section, ``Description of Geographic Region,'' terrestrial habitat
encompasses approximately 10,000 km\2\ (3,861 mi\2\) of the NPR-A.
Bears can use the terrestrial habitat to travel and possibly den and a
smaller portion of this habitat situated along the coast could be
potential polar bear denning habitat. However, the majority of coastal
denning for the Chukchi Sea bears occurs along the Chukotka coast in
the Russian Federation, outside of the geographic region. Hence,
Industry activities operating on the Alaskan coast have the potential
to impact only a small number of bears. Additionally, where terrestrial
activities may occur in coastal areas of Alaska in polar bear denning
habitat, specific mitigation measures would be required to minimize
Industry impacts.
The Use of Monitoring Requirements and Mitigation Measures
Holders of an LOA must adopt monitoring requirements and mitigation
measures designed to reduce potential impacts of their operations on
polar bears. Restrictions on the season of operation (July to November)
for marine activities are intended to limit operations to ice-free
conditions when polar bear densities are expected to be low in the
proposed area of Industry operation. Additional mitigation measures
could also occur near areas important to polar bears, such as certain
critical habitat. Specific aircraft or vessel traffic patterns would be
implemented when appropriate to minimize potential impacts to animals.
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 proposed
regulations) would be used to avoid or minimize interactions with polar
bears. For example, in Industry activities in terrestrial environments
where denning polar bears may be a factor, mitigation measures would
require that den detection surveys be conducted and Industry will
maintain at least a 1-mile distance from any known polar bear den. A
full description of the required Industry mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements associated with an LOA can be found in 50 CFR
18.118. While these regulations describe a suite of general
requirements, additional mitigation measures could be developed at the
project level given site-specific parameters or techniques developed in
the future that could be more
[[Page 1978]]
appropriate to minimize Industry impacts.
Polar Bear Small Number Conclusion
We anticipate a low number of polar bears at any given time in the
areas the Service anticipates Industry operations to occur, and given
the size of the operations and the mitigation factors anticipated, the
likelihood of impacting individual animals is low. We anticipate that
the type of take would be similar to that observed in 2006 to 2011,
i.e., nonlethal, minor, short-term behavioral changes that would not
cause a disruption in normal behavioral patterns of polar bears. In
addition, these takes are unlikely to have cumulative effects from year
to year as the response of bears would be short-lived, behavioral or
physiological responses, and the same individuals are unlikely to be
exposed in subsequent years. Overall, these takes (25 annually) are not
expected to, or not likely to, result in adverse effects that would
influence population-level reproduction, recruitment, or survival.
Small Number Summary and Conclusion
To summarize, relative to species abundance, only a small number of
the Pacific walrus population and the Chukchi/Bering Sea and Southern
Beaufort Sea polar bear populations would be impacted by the proposed
Industry activities. This statement can be made with a high level of
confidence because:
(1) Pacific walruses and polar bears are expected to remain closely
associated with either sea ice or coastal zones, predominantly the
Russian Federation coast, where food availability is high and not in
open water where the proposed activity will occur.
(2) Vessel observations from 2006 to 2011 recorded encountering
11,125 walruses, which is a small percentage of the overall walrus
population. Of this small percentage of walruses observed, only 2,448
individuals appeared to have exhibited mild forms of behavioral
response, such as being attentive to the vessel. During the same 6-year
period, 62 polar bears were observed, which is a small percentage of
the overall Alaskan population. Of this small percentage of observed
polar bears, only 20 individuals exhibited mild forms of behavioral
response.
(3) The restrictive monitoring and mitigation measures that would
be placed on Industry activity would further reduce the number of
animals encountered and minimize any potential impacts to those
individuals encountered.
(4) The continued predicted decline in sea ice extent as the result
of climate change is anticipated to further reduce the number of polar
bears and walruses occurring in the specified geographic area during
Industry activities because neither species prefers using the open
water environment. This would further reduce the potential for
interactions with Industry activities during the open-water season.
In conclusion, given the spatial distribution, habitat
requirements, and applicable data, the number of animals interacting
with Industry activities would be small compared to the total Pacific
walrus and the Chukchi and Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear
populations. Moreover, not all interactions would result in a taking as
defined under the MMPA, which will reduce the numbers even further.
Negligible Effects Determination
Based upon our review of the nature, scope, and timing of the
proposed Industry activities and mitigation measures, and in
consideration of the best available scientific information, it is our
determination that the proposed activities would have a negligible
impact on walruses and on polar bears. We considered multiple factors
in our negligible effects determination.
The predicted impacts of proposed activities on walruses and polar
bears would be nonlethal, temporary passive takes of animals. The
documented impacts of previous similar Industry activities on walruses
and polar bears, taking into consideration cumulative effects, provides
direct information that the Industry activities analyzed for this
proposed rule are likely to have minimal effects on individual polar
bears and Pacific walruses. All anticipated effects would be short-
term, temporary behavioral changes, such as avoiding the activity and/
or moving away from the activity. Any minor displacement would not
result in more than negligible impacts because habitats of similar
value are not limited to the area of immediate activity and are
abundantly available within the region. The Service does not anticipate
that these impacts would cause disruptions in normal behavioral
patterns of affected animals. The Service predicts the impacts of
Industry activities on walruses and polar bears would be infrequent,
sporadic, and of short duration. Additionally, impacts would involve
passive forms of take and are not likely to adversely affect overall
population reproduction, recruitment, or survival. The potential
effects of Industry activities are discussed in detail in the section
``Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears.''
A review of similar Industry activities and associated impacts in
2006 to 2011 in the Chukchi Sea, where the majority of the proposed
activities will occur, help us predict the type of impacts and their
effects that would likely occur during the timeframe of these proposed
regulations. Vessel-based monitors reported 11,125 walrus sightings
during Industry seismic activity from 2006 to 2011. Approximately 7,310
animals exhibited no response to the vessels while 2,448 of the
walruses sighted exhibited some form of behavioral response to stimuli
(auditory or visual) originating from the vessels, primarily exhibiting
attentiveness, approach, avoidance, or fleeing. Again, other than a
short-term change in behavior, no negative impacts 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
activities in the Chukchi Sea were observed on land, on ice, and in the
water. Bears reacted to the human presence, whether the conveyance was
marine, aerial, or ground-based, by distancing themselves from the
conveyance. In addition, polar bear reactions recorded during
activities suggested that 65 percent of the bears (45 of 62 individual
bears) observed elicited no reaction at all to the human presence.
Thirty-two percent of the bears exhibited temporary, minor changes in
behavior.
Mitigation measures would limit potential effects of Industry
activities. As described in the Small Numbers Determination, holders of
an LOA must adopt monitoring requirements and mitigation measures
designed to reduce potential impacts of their operations on walruses
and polar bears. Seasonal restrictions, required monitoring programs 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 proposed regulations) would all be used to avoid or
minimize interactions with walruses and polar bears and therefore limit
Industry effects on these animals. First, restricting Industry
activities to the open water season (July to November) would insure
that walruses reach preferred summering areas without interference and
polar bears are able to exploit sea ice habitats in active lease sale
areas. Second, MMOs on all
[[Page 1979]]
vessels would inform the bridge when animals are observed; identify
their location and distance; and identify situations when seismic
survey shutdowns, course changes, and speed reductions are needed to
maintain specified separation distances designed to avoid take. Third,
the data collected by MMOs about encounters would be used to refine
mitigation measures, if needed. Fourth, standard operation procedures
for aircraft (altitude requirements and lateral distance separation)
are also designed to avoid disturbance of walruses and polar bears.
We conclude that any incidental take reasonably likely to occur as
a result of carrying out any of the activities described under these
proposed regulations would have no more than negligible impacts on
walruses and polar bears in 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. As described in detail previously, we expect that only
small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears would be exposed to
Industry activities. We expect that individual Pacific walruses and
polar bears that are exposed to Industry activity would experience only
short-term, temporary, and minimal changes to their normal behavior.
These proposed regulations would not authorize lethal take, and we do
not anticipate any lethal take would occur.
Findings
We propose the following findings regarding this action:
Small Numbers
The Service finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to
result from the effects of the proposed activities, as mitigated
through this proposed regulatory process, would be limited to small
numbers of walruses and polar bears relative to species abundance. 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 Industry 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 subset of the overall walrus population would
occur in the specified geographic region and that a small proportion of
that subset would encounter Industry operations. In addition, only a
small proportion of the relevant stocks of polar bear and Pacific
walruses will would likely be impacted by any individual project
because: (1) The proportion of walruses and polar bears in the U.S.
portion of the Chukchi Sea during the open water season is relatively
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 proposed marine Industry activities would occur; (3) within the
specified geographical region, the scope 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 (5) the
required monitoring requirements and mitigation measures described
below would further reduce impacts.
The number of animals likely to be affected is small, because: (1)
A small proportion of the Pacific walrus population or the Chukchi Sea
and Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear populations will be present in the
area of proposed Industry activities; (2) of that portion, a small
percentage would come in contact with Industry activities; and (3) of
those individuals that may come in contact with Industry activities,
less than one-third are anticipated to exhibit a behavioral response
that may rise to the level of harassment as defined by the MMPA.
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 this proposed rule in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent
western coast of Alaska would have no more than a negligible effect, if
any, on Pacific walruses and polar bears. We make this finding based on
the best scientific information available including: (1) The results of
monitoring data from our previous regulations (19 years of monitoring
and reporting data); (2) the review of the information generated by the
listing of the polar bear as a threatened species and the designation
of polar bear critical habitat; (3) the analysis of the listing of the
Pacific walrus as a candidate species under the ESA, and the status of
the population; (4) the biological and behavioral characteristics of
the species, which is expected to limit the amount of interactions
between walruses, polar bears, and Industry; (5) the nature of proposed
oil and gas Industry activities; (6) the potential effects of Industry
activities on the species, which would not impact the rates of
recruitment and survival of polar bears and walruses in the Chukchi Sea
Region; (7) the documented impacts of Industry activities on the
species, where nonlethal, temporary, passive takes of animals occur,
taking into consideration cumulative effects; (8) 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; (9) mitigation
measures that would minimize Industry impacts through adaptive
management; and (10) other data provided by monitoring activities
through the incidental take program in the Beaufort Sea (1993 to 2011)
and in the Chukchi Sea (1989 to 1996 and 2006 to 2011).
In making these findings, we considered the following:
(1) The distribution of the species (through 10 years of aerial
surveys and studies of feeding ecology, and analysis of pack ice
position and Pacific walrus and polar bear distribution);
(2) The biological characteristics of the species (through harvest
data, biopsy information, and radio telemetry data);
(3) The nature of oil and gas Industry activities;
(4) The potential effects of Industry activities and potential oil
spills on the species;
(5) The probability of oil spills occurring;
(6) The documented impacts of Industry activities on the species
taking into consideration cumulative effects;
(7) The potential impacts of climate change, where both walruses
and polar bears can potentially be displaced from preferred habitat;
(8) Mitigation measures designed to minimize Industry impacts
through adaptive management; and
(9) Other data provided by Industry monitoring programs in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
We also considered the specific Congressional direction in
balancing the potential for a significant impact with the likelihood of
that event occurring. The specific Congressional direction that
justifies balancing probabilities with impacts follows:
If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural or
speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A
finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the
probability of occurrence is low but the potential effects may be
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts
must be balanced with
[[Page 1980]]
the potential severity of harm to the species or stock when
determining negligible impact. In applying this balancing test, the
Service will thoroughly evaluate the risks involved and the
potential impacts on marine mammal populations. Such a determination
will be made based on the best available scientific information [53
FR 8474, March 15, 1988; 132 Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 1986)].
We reviewed the effects of the oil and gas Industry activities on
polar bears and walruses, including impacts from noise, physical
obstructions, human encounters, and oil spills. Based on our review of
these potential impacts, past LOA monitoring reports, and the biology
and natural history of walruses and polar bears, we conclude that any
incidental take reasonably likely to or reasonably expected to occur as
a result of proposed activities would have a negligible impact on polar
bear and Pacific walrus populations. Furthermore, we do not expect
these disturbances to affect the annual rates of recruitment or
survival for the walrus and polar bear populations. These proposed
regulations would not authorize lethal take, and we do not anticipate
any lethal take would occur.
The probability of an exploratory oil spill that would cause
significant impacts to walruses and polar bears appears to be extremely
low during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations. In the
unlikely event of a catastrophic spill, we will take immediate action
to minimize the impacts to these species and reconsider the
appropriateness of authorizations for incidental taking through section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Our finding of ``negligible impact'' applies to incidental take
associated with the petitioner's 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 interactions with and impacts to walruses and polar bears. We
would evaluate each request for an LOA based on the specific activity
and the specific geographic location where the proposed activities are
projected to occur to ensure that the level of activity and potential
take is consistent with our finding of negligible impact. Depending on
the results of the evaluation, we may grant the authorization, add
further operating restrictions, or deny the authorization.
Conditions are attached to each LOA. These conditions minimize
interference with normal breeding, feeding, and possible migration
patterns to ensure that the effects to the species remain negligible. A
complete list and description of conditions attached to all LOAs is
found at the end of this document in the proposed changes to 50 CFR
18.118. Examples of conditions include, but are not limited to: (1)
These regulations would not authorize intentional taking of polar bear
or walruses or lethal incidental take; (2) for the protection of
pregnant polar bears during denning activities (den selection,
birthing, and maturation of cubs) in known denning areas, Industry
activities may be restricted in specific locations during specified
times of the year; and (3) each activity covered by an LOA requires a
site specific plan of operation and a site specific polar bear and
walrus interaction plan. We may add additional measures depending upon
site specific and species specific concerns. We will analyze the
required plan of operation and interaction plans to ensure that the
level of activity and possible take are consistent with our finding
that total incidental takes will have a negligible impact on polar bear
and walruses and, where relevant, will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of these species for subsistence uses.
We have evaluated climate change in regard to polar bears and
walruses. Although climate change is a worldwide phenomenon, it was
analyzed as a contributing effect that could alter polar bear and
walrus habitat and behavior. Climate change could alter walrus and
polar bear habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended duration
of open water, may preclude sea ice habitat use and restrict some
animals to coastal areas. The reduction of sea ice extent, caused by
climate change, may also affect the timing of walrus and polar bear
seasonal movements between the coastal regions and the pack ice. If the
sea ice continues to recede as predicted, it is hypothesized that polar
bears may spend more time on land rather than on sea ice similar to
what has been recorded in Hudson Bay, Canada. Climate change could also
alter terrestrial denning habitat through coastal erosion brought about
by accelerated wave action. The challenge will be predicting changes in
ice habitat, barrier islands, and coastal habitats in relation to
changes in polar bear and walrus distribution and use of habitat.
Climate change over time continues to be a major concern to the
Service, and we are currently involved in the collection of baseline
data to help us understand how the effects of climate change will be
manifested in the Chukchi Sea walrus and polar bear populations. As we
gain a better understanding of climate change effects on the Chukchi
Sea population, we will incorporate the information in future actions.
Ongoing studies include those led by the Service and the USGS Alaska
Science Center to examine polar bear and walrus habitat use,
reproduction, and survival relative to a changing sea ice environment.
Specific objectives of the project include: An enhanced understanding
of walrus and polar bear habitat availability and quality influenced by
ongoing climate changes and the response by polar bears and walruses;
the effects of walrus and polar bear responses to climate-induced
changes to the sea ice environment on body condition of adults, numbers
and sizes of offspring, and survival of offspring to weaning
(recruitment); and population age structure.
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 proposed 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) the BOEM/BSEE issued operational permits; (4) records
on subsistence harvest from the Service's Marking, Tagging, and
Reporting Program; (5) community consultations; (6) effectiveness of
the POC process between Industry and affected Native communities; and
(7) anticipated 5-year effects of proposed Industry 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 walruses and polar bears, their habitat,
and on the availability of these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
Prior to receipt of an LOA, Industry must provide evidence to us that
community consultations have occurred and that an adequate POC has been
presented to the subsistence communities. Industry would be required to
contact subsistence
[[Page 1981]]
communities that may be affected by its activities to discuss potential
conflicts caused by location, timing, and methods of proposed
operations. Industry must make reasonable efforts to ensure that
activities do not interfere with subsistence hunting and that adverse
effects on the availability of polar bear or walruses are minimized.
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. The POC would help ensure that oil and gas activities
would continue not to have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses.
Where prescribed, holders of LOAs must 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.
The Service has not received any reports and is aware of no
information that indicates that polar bears or walruses are being or
will be deflected from hunting areas or impacted in any way that
diminishes their availability for subsistence use by the expected level
of the proposed oil and gas activity. If there is evidence during the
5-year period of the proposed regulations that oil and gas activities
are affecting the availability of walruses or polar bears for take for
subsistence uses, we would reevaluate our findings regarding
permissible limits of take and the measures required to ensure
continued subsistence hunting opportunities.
Monitoring and Reporting
The purpose of monitoring requirements is to assess the effects of
industrial activities on polar bears and walruses, to ensure that take
is consistent with that anticipated in the negligible impact and
subsistence use analyses, and to detect any unanticipated effects on
the species. Monitoring plans document when and how bears and walruses
are encountered, the number of bears and walruses, and their behavior
during the encounter. This information allows the Service to measure
encounter rates and trends of bear and walrus activity in the
industrial areas (such as numbers and gender, activity, seasonal use)
and to estimate numbers of animals potentially affected by Industry.
Monitoring plans are site-specific and dependent on the proximity of
the activity to important habitat areas, such as den sites, travel
corridors, and food sources; however, all activities are required to
report all sightings of polar bears and walruses. To the extent
possible, monitors would record group size, age, sex, reaction,
duration of interaction, and closest approach to Industry. Activities
within the coast of the geographic region may incorporate daily watch
logs as well, which record 24-hour animal observations throughout the
duration of the project. Polar bear monitors would be incorporated into
the monitoring plan if bears are known to frequent the area or known
polar bear dens are present in the area. At offshore Industry sites,
systematic monitoring protocols would be implemented to statistically
monitor observation trends of walruses or polar bears in the nearshore
areas where they usually occur.
Monitoring activities are summarized and reported in a formal
report each year. The applicant must submit an annual monitoring and
reporting plan at least 90 days prior to the initiation of a proposed
activity, and the applicant must submit a final monitoring report to us
no later than 90 days after the completion of the activity. We base
each year's monitoring objective on the previous year's monitoring
results.
We require an approved plan for monitoring and reporting the
effects of oil and gas Industry exploration, development, and
production activities on polar bears and walruses prior to issuance of
an LOA. Since production activities are continuous and long-term, upon
approval, LOAs and their required monitoring and reporting plans will
be issued for the life of the activity or until the expiration of the
regulations, whichever occurs first. Each year, prior to January 15, we
require that the operator submit development and production activity
monitoring results of the previous year's activity. We require approval
of the monitoring results for continued operation under the LOA.
Treaty Obligations
The regulations are consistent with the Bilateral Agreement for the
Conservation and Management of the Polar Bear between the United States
and the Russian Federation. Article II of the Polar Bear Agreement
lists three obligations of the Parties in protecting polar bear
habitat:
(1) ``Take appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which
polar bears are a part;''
(2) ``Give special attention to habitat components such as
denning and feeding sites and migration patterns;'' and
(3) ``Manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound
conservation practices based on the best available scientific
data.''
This proposed rule is also consistent with the Service's treaty
obligations because it incorporates mitigation measures that ensure the
protection of polar bear habitat. LOAs for industrial activities are
conditioned to include area or seasonal timing limitations or
prohibitions, such as placing 1-mile avoidance buffers around known or
observed dens (which halts or limits activity until the bear naturally
leaves the den), building roads perpendicular to the coast to allow for
polar bear movements along the coast, and monitoring the effects of the
activities on polar bears. Available denning habitat maps are provided
by the USGS.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized:
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly
[[Page 1982]]
written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where
you feel tables would be useful, etc.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations
We have prepared a draft EA in conjunction with this proposed
rulemaking. Subsequent to closure of the comment period for this
proposed rule, we will decide whether this rulemaking is a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA of
1969. For a copy of the EA, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043 or contact the individual identified
above in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
On May 15, 2008, the Service listed the polar bear as a threatened
species under the ESA (73 FR 28212), and on December 7, 2010 (75 FR
76086), the Service designated critical habitat for polar bear
populations in the United States, effective January 6, 2011. Sections
7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1) and (2)) direct
the Service to review its programs and to utilize such programs in the
furtherance of the purposes of the ESA and to ensure that a proposed
action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an ESA-
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. In addition, the status of walruses rangewide was
reviewed for potential listing under the ESA. The listing of walruses
was found to be warranted, but precluded due to higher priority listing
actions (i.e., walrus is a candidate species) on February 10, 2011 (76
FR 7634). Consistent with our statutory obligations, the Service's
Marine Mammal Management Office has initiated an intra-Service section
7 consultation regarding the effects of these proposed regulations on
the polar bear with the Service's Fairbanks' Ecological Services Field
Office. Consistent with established agency policy, we will also conduct
a conference regarding the effects of these proposed regulations on the
Pacific walrus. We will complete the consultation and conference prior
to finalizing these proposed regulations.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The OIRA
has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainly, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Expenses would be related to, but not necessarily limited to, the
development of applications for LOAs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting activities conducted during Industry oil and gas operations,
development of polar bear interaction plans, and coordination with
Alaska Natives to minimize effects of operations on subsistence
hunting. Compliance with the rule, if adopted, is not expected to
result in additional costs to Industry that it has not already been
subjected to for the previous 7 years. Realistically, these costs are
minimal in comparison to those related to actual oil and gas
exploration, development, and production operations. The actual costs
to Industry to develop the petition for promulgation of regulations and
LOA requests probably does not exceed $500,000 per year, short of the
``major rule'' threshold that would require preparation of a regulatory
impact analysis.
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 U.S. based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also determined that this rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposes to authorize the nonlethal, incidental, but
not intentional, take of walruses and polar bears by oil and gas
Industry companies and thereby would exempt 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 impact summary
statement 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 would 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 proposed rulemaking would not impose a cost of
$100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or
private entities. This rule would 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,
[[Page 1983]]
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. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3225 of January 19, 2001 [Endangered
Species Act and Subsistence Uses in Alaska (Supplement to Secretarial
Order 3206)], Department of the Interior Memorandum of January 18, 2001
(Alaska Government-to-Government Policy), Department of the Interior
Secretarial Order 3317 of December 1, 2011 (Tribal Consultation and
Policy), and the Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, June 28, 1994, we acknowledge our responsibilities to work
directly with Alaska Natives in developing programs for healthy
ecosystems, to seek their full and meaningful participation in
evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for listed species, to
remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information
available to Tribes. We have evaluated possible effects on federally
recognized Alaska Native tribes. Through the LOA process identified in
the proposed regulations, Industry presents a communication process,
culminating in a POC, if warranted, with the Native communities most
likely to be affected and engages these communities in numerous
informational meetings.
To facilitate co-management activities, cooperative agreements have
been completed by the Service, the Alaska Nanuuq Commission (ANC), the
Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC), and Qayassiq Walrus Commission (QWC).
The cooperative agreements fund a wide variety of management issues,
including: Commission co-management operations; biological sampling
programs; harvest monitoring; collection of Native knowledge in
management; international coordination on management issues;
cooperative enforcement of the MMPA; and development of local
conservation plans. To help realize mutual management goals, the
Service, ANC, QWC, and EWC regularly hold meetings to discuss future
expectations and outline a shared vision of co-management.
The Service also has ongoing cooperative relationships with the NSB
and the Inupiat-Inuvialuit Game Commission where we work cooperatively
to ensure that data collected from harvest and research are used to
ensure that polar bears are available for harvest in the future;
provide information to co-management partners that allows them to
evaluate harvest relative to their management agreements and
objectives; and provide information that allows evaluation of the
status, trends, and health of polar bear populations.
Civil Justice Reform
The Departmental Solicitor's Office has determined that these
proposed regulations do not unduly burden the judicial system and meet
the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information collection requirements. We may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Information
collection requirements included in this proposed rule are approved by
the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). The OMB control number assigned to these information collection
requirements is 1018-0070, which expires on January 31, 2014. This
control number covers the information collection, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in 50 CFR 18, subpart I, which are associated
with the development and issuance of specific regulations and LOAs.
Energy Effects
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule
would provide exceptions from the taking prohibitions of the MMPA for
entities engaged in the exploration of oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea
and adjacent coast of Alaska. By providing certainty regarding
compliance with the MMPA, this rule would have a positive effect on
Industry and its activities. Although the rule would require Industry
to take a number of actions, these actions have been undertaken by
Industry for many years as part of similar past regulations. Therefore,
this rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use and does not constitute a significant energy
action. No Statement of Energy Effects is required.
References
A list of the references cited in this rule is available on the
Federal eRulemaking portal (http://www.regulations.gov) under Docket
No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service proposes to
amend part 18, subchapter B of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations to be effective June 11, 2013, to June 11, 2018, 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
[[Page 1984]]
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA13.000
Sec. 18.113 When is this subpart effective?
Regulations in this subpart are effective from [effective date of
the final rule] through [date 5 years from the effective date of the
final rule] 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
activity on polar bears and Pacific walruses that may be present during
the ongoing activities (i.e., marine mammal monitoring and mitigation
plan). Your monitoring program must document the effects to these
marine mammals and estimate the actual level and type of
[[Page 1985]]
take. The monitoring requirements provided by the Service will vary
depending on the activity, the location, and the time of year.
(3) A site-specific polar bear and/or walrus awareness and
interaction plan. An interaction plan for each operation will outline
the steps the applicant will take to limit animal-human interactions,
increase site safety, and minimize impacts to marine mammals.
(4) A record of community consultation or a Plan of Cooperation
(POC) to mitigate potential conflicts between the proposed activity and
subsistence hunting, when necessary. 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 Commission) to discuss the location, timing, and methods
of proposed operations and support activities and to 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 and a record of community
consultation. 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, 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
Pacific 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) All applicants.
(i) We require holders of Letters of Authorization to cooperate
with us and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to
monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration activities on polar
bears and Pacific walruses.
(ii) Holders of Letters of Authorization must designate a qualified
individual or individuals to observe, record, and report on the effects
of their activities on polar bears and Pacific walruses.
(iii) Holders of Letters of Authorization must have an approved
polar bear and/or walrus interaction plan on file with the Service and
onsite, and polar bear awareness training will be required of certain
personnel. Interaction plans must include:
(A) The type of activity and where and when the activity will
occur, i.e., a plan of operation;
(B) A food and waste management plan;
(C) Personnel training materials and procedures;
(D) Site at-risk locations and situations;
(E) Walrus and bear observation and reporting procedures; and
(F) Bear and walrus avoidance and encounter procedures.
(iv) All applicants for a Letter of Authorization must contact
affected subsistence communities to discuss potential conflicts caused
by location, timing, and methods of proposed operations and submit to
us a record of communication that documents these discussions. If
appropriate, the applicant for a Letter of Authorization must also
submit to us a POC that ensures that activities will not interfere with
subsistence hunting and that adverse effects on the availability of
polar bear or Pacific walruses are minimized (see Sec. 18.114(c)(4)).
(v) If deemed appropriate by the Service, holders of a Letter of
Authorization will be required to hire and train polar bear monitors to
alert crew of the presence of polar bears and initiate adaptive
mitigation responses.
(2) 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 an 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of walruses or polar bears observed on
ice. Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, should any vessel
approach within 1,610 m (1 mi) of groups of walruses observed on land
or within an 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of polar bears observed on land.
(iii) Vessel operators must take every precaution to avoid
harassment of concentrations of feeding walruses
[[Page 1986]]
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 groups of 12 or more walruses encountered in the water. 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.
(vi) We may require a monitor on the site of the activity or on
board drillships, drill rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other support
vessels or vehicles to monitor the impacts of Industry's activity on
polar bear and Pacific walruses.
(3) 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 fixed
wing aircraft operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within
805 m (0.5 mi) of walrus groups observed on ice, or within 1,610 m (1
mi) of walrus groups observed on land. Under no circumstances, other
than an emergency, should rotary winged aircraft (helicopters) operate
at an altitude lower than 914 m (3,000 ft) within 1,610 m (1 mi) of
walrus groups observed on land. Under no circumstances, other than an
emergency, should aircraft operate at an altitude lower than 457 m
(1,500 ft) within 805 m (0.5 mi) of 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
457-m (1,500-ft) flying altitude, such as during severe storms or when
cloud cover is low, aircraft may be operated below the required
altitudes stipulated above. However, when aircraft are operated at
altitudes below 457 m (1,500 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.
(4) 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 two simultaneous seismic operations and three
offshore exploratory drilling 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)(7) 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.
(5) Additional mitigation measures for offshore seismic surveys.
Any offshore exploration activity expected to include the production of
pulsed underwater sounds with sound source levels >=160 dB re 1 [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 >=
180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa; an acoustically verified exclusion zone for polar
bear surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received level would
be >= 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 >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa.
(ii) Ramp-up procedures. For all seismic surveys, including airgun
testing, use the following ramp-up procedures to allow marine mammals
to depart the exclusion zone before seismic surveying begins:
(A) Visually monitor the exclusion zone and adjacent waters for the
absence of polar bears and walruses for at least 30 minutes before
initiating ramp-up procedures. If no polar bears or walruses are
detected, you may initiate ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate ramp-up
procedures at night or when you cannot visually monitor the exclusion
zone for marine mammals.
(B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single airgun. The
preferred airgun to begin with should be the smallest airgun, in terms
of energy output (dB) and volume (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/Shutdown. Immediately power down or shutdown 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 shutdown the seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic
sources.
(iv) Emergency shutdown. 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 shutdown and the Service
contacted. The airgun array will not be restarted until review and
approval has been given by the Service. The ramp-up procedures provided
in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section must be followed when
restarting.
(v) Adaptive response for walrus aggregations. Whenever an
aggregation
[[Page 1987]]
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 shutdown the seismic airgun array
and/or other acoustic sources to ensure sound pressure levels at the
shortest distance to the aggregation do not exceed 160-dB re 1 [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 shutdown was required, the ramp-up procedures provided in
paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section must be followed when restarting.
(6) Additional mitigation measures for onshore exploration
activities.
(i) 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.
(ii) Efforts to minimize disturbance around known polar bear dens.
As part of potential terrestrial activities during the winter season,
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 to 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 to 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.
(7) 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.
(A) The POC must include:
(1) A description of the procedures by which the holder of the
Letter of Authorization will work and consult with potentially affected
subsistence hunters; and
(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.
(B) 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:
(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 concerning 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 (i.e., document
immediate behavioral responses as well as longer term when possible),
and evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed mitigation measures. The
Service needs comprehensive observations to determine if encounters
with Industry activities have a negligible impact. This not only
includes the type of behavioral response, but also the duration of the
response until previous behaviors are resumed. Ideally, this will
involve a random sampling of individuals and observations of those
individuals prior to, during, and following an encounter. This may
require the use of additional vessels or aircraft or telemetry
equipment to track animals encountered for extended periods of time.
For example, resting walruses flushed from an ice floe would need to be
tracked until they subsequently hauled out on the ice to rest. In
addition, such a project could involve both opportunistic data
collection (during the course of normal activities) and planned
experimentation.
(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
[[Page 1988]]
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. These monitoring and research efforts must employ
rigorous study designs (e.g., before-after, control-impact [BACI]) and
sampling protocols (e.g., ground-truthed remote sensing) in order to
provide useful information. Information needs in the Chukchi Sea
include, but are not limited to:
(i) Distribution, abundance, movements, and habitat use patterns of
walruses and polar bears in offshore environments;
(ii) Patterns of subsistence hunting activities by the Native
Villages of Kivalina, Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow for
walruses and polar bears;
(iii) Immediate and longer term (when possible) behavioral and
other responses of walruses and polar bears to seismic airguns,
drilling operations, vessel traffic, and fixed wing aircraft and
helicopters;
(iv) Contaminant levels in walruses, polar bears, and their prey;
(v) Cumulative effects of multiple simultaneous operations on
walruses and polar bears; and
(vi) Oil spill risk assessment for the marine and shoreline
environment of walruses, polar bears, their prey, and important habitat
areas (e.g., coastal haulouts and den sites).
(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, sex, and age of walruses (if determinable);
(C) Observer name, company name, vessel name or aircraft number,
LOA number, and contact information;
(D) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of
observation;
(E) Estimated distance from the animal or group when initially
sighted, at closest approach, and end of the encounter;
(F) Industry activity at time of sighting and throughout the
encounter. If a seismic survey, record the estimated radius of the zone
of ensonification;
(G) Behavior of animals at initial sighting, any change in behavior
during the observation period, and distance from the observers
associated with those behavioral changes;
(H) Detailed description of the encounter;
(I) Duration of the encounter;
(J) Duration of any behavioral response (e.g., time and distance of
a flight response) and;
(K) 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, sex, and age of bears (if determinable);
(C) Observer name, company name, vessel name, LOA number, 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/or vessel/facilities;
(F) Industry activity at time of sighting, and possible attractants
present;
(G) Behavior of animals at initial sighting and after contact;
(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 of each vessel and
aircraft;
(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;
(iv) Estimates of take based on the number of animals encountered/
kilometer of vessel and aircraft operations by behavioral response (no
response, moved away, dove, etc.), and animals encountered per day by
behavioral response for stationary drilling operations; and
(v) Raw data in electronic format (i.e., Excel spreadsheet) as
specified by the Service in consultation with Industry representatives.
Sec. 18.119 What are the information collection requirements?
(a) The Office of Management and Budget has approved the collection
of information contained in this subpart and assigned control number
1018-0070. You must respond to this information collection request to
obtain a benefit pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. We will use the information to:
(1) Evaluate the application and determine whether or not to issue
specific Letters of Authorization.
(2) Monitor impacts of activities conducted under the Letters of
Authorization.
(b) You should direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any
[[Page 1989]]
other aspect of this requirement to the Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Mail Stop 2042-PDM, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Dated: December 11, 2012.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-31347 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P