[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88943-88961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28428]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0209; FXES111607MRG01-245-FF07CAMM00]
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities;
Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for the Southern Beaufort
Sea Stock of Polar Bears on the North Slope of Alaska
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of application; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; notice of availability of draft environmental
assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a
request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended,
from the Bureau of Land Management, propose to authorize nonlethal
incidental take by harassment of small numbers of Southern Beaufort Sea
(SBS) polar bears (Ursus maritimus) for 1 year from the date of
issuance. The applicant requested this authorization for take by
harassment that may result from activities associated with oil well
plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, pad, and airstrip
construction, and summer cleanup activities in the North Slope Borough
of Alaska between the Wainwright and Oliktok Areas. This proposed
authorization, if finalized, will be for up to 18 takes of polar bears
by Level B harassment and up to 3 takes of polar bears by non-serious
Level A harassment. No serious Level A or lethal take is requested,
expected, or proposed to be authorized.
DATES: Comments on this proposed incidental harassment authorization
and the accompanying draft environmental assessment must be received by
January 25, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may view this proposed incidental
harassment authorization, the application package, supporting
information, draft environmental assessment, and the list of references
cited herein at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-
2023-0209. Alternatively, you may request these documents from the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment submission: You may submit comments on the proposed
authorization by one of the following methods:
[[Page 88944]]
U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2023-0209, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W),
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
Electronic submission:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0209.
We will post all comments at https://www.regulations.gov. You may
request that we withhold personal identifying information from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. See
Request for Public Comments for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hamilton, by email at
[email protected], by telephone at 1-800-362-5148, or by U.S.
mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 341, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals in
response to requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 18, at 50 CFR 18.27(c))
engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) in a
specified geographic region during a period of not more than 1 year.
The Secretary has delegated authority for implementation of the MMPA to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we). According to the
MMPA, the Service shall allow this incidental taking by harassment if
we make findings that the total of such taking for the 1-year period:
(1) is of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock;
(2) will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks; and
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use by Alaska
Natives.
If the requisite findings are made, we issue an authorization that
sets forth the following, where applicable:
(a) permissible methods of taking;
(b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or
stock for subsistence uses; and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking by
harassment, including, in certain circumstances, requirements for the
independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans or other research
proposals.
The term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
``Harassment'' for activities other than military readiness activities
or scientific research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal
Government means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in
the wild (the MMPA defines this as ``Level A harassment''), or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (the MMPA defines this as ``Level B harassment'').
The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact''
are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small takes of
marine mammals incidental to specified activities) as follows:
``Negligible impact'' is an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. ``Unmitigable adverse impact''
means an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) that is
likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly
displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27.
However, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates ``small
numbers'' with ``negligible impacts.'' We recognize ``small numbers''
and ``negligible impacts'' as two separate and distinct requirements
when reviewing requests for incidental harassment authorizations (IHA)
under the MMPA (see Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F.
Supp. 2d 1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). Instead, for our small numbers
determination, we estimate the likely number of marine mammals to be
taken and evaluate if that number is small relative to the size of the
species or stock.
The term ``least practicable adverse impact'' is not defined in the
MMPA or its enacting regulations. For this IHA, we ensure the least
practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are
effective in reducing the impact of specified activities, but they are
not so restrictive as to make specified activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete.
If the requisite findings are made, we shall issue an IHA, which
may set forth the following, where applicable: (i) permissible methods
of taking; (ii) other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence
uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives (if applicable); and (iii)
requirements for monitoring and reporting take by harassment.
Summary of Request
On May 22, 2023, the Service received a request from the Department
of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for authorization to
take by nonlethal incidental harassment small numbers of Southern
Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during oil well
plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, pad, and runway
construction, and summer cleanup activities in the North Slope Borough
of Alaska between the Wainwright and Oliktok Areas, for a period of 1
year from the date of issuance and beginning during the winter of 2023/
2024. Their request also included a proposed Polar Bear Awareness and
Interaction Plan. The Service requested further information on June 8,
June 16, July 10, August 7, September 15, and September 19, 2023. BLM
submitted clarifying information on June 26, July 18, August 10,
September 20, and October 5, 2023. The Service received a revised
application on October 5, 2023. The Service deemed the revised request
dated September 2023 (received October 5, 2023; hereafter referred to
as the ``Request''), adequate and complete on October 5, 2023.
[[Page 88945]]
Description of Specified Activities and Specified Geographic Region
The specified activities described in the Request consist of oil
well plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, pad, and
airstrip construction, and summer cleanup activities in the North Slope
Borough of Alaska between the Wainwright and Oliktok Areas (figure 1;
BLM 2023).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26DE23.001
Maternal Den Surveys
BLM will conduct two aerial infrared (AIR) maternal den surveys to
identify any active polar bear dens in the area prior to beginning
operations within a 2-mile corridor along the northern route from
Oliktok to the Tulageak well site. The surveyors will use AIR cameras
on fixed-wing aircraft with flights flown between 245-457 meters (m)
(800-1,500 feet [ft]) above ground level at a speed of <185 kilometers
per hour (km/h) (<115 miles per hour [mph]). These surveys will be
concentrated on areas within 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile [mi]) of
project activities that would be suitable for polar bear denning
activity such as drainages, banks, bluffs, or other areas of
topographic relief. The first survey will be conducted between December
1 and 25, 2023, and the second survey will be conducted between
December 15, 2023, and January 10, 2024, with a minimum of 24 hours
between surveys.
Snow Trail, Pad, and Airstrip Construction
There are no permanent roads available to access any of the three
legacy wells included in this project; therefore, construction of
temporary snow trails is required. Snow trail construction will occur
during January or February of 2024, after ``prepacking'' a minimum of
15 centimeters (cm) (6 inches [in]) of base snow via all terrain
smooth-tracked vehicles approved for off-road tundra travel. Prepacking
promotes lower tundra soil temperatures and accelerates freezing of
soils prior to use, thereby helping to protect the tundra during snow
trail and pad grooming, maintenance, and use. Snow will also be packed
around stream crossings to protect stream banks and vegetation. Exact
locations may vary up to 1 mile on either side of the center lines
depicted in figure 1 based on field conditions. This project will
require the use of up to approximately 1,001 km (622 mi) of 9-m (30-ft)
wide snow trails; however, some of the trails utilized will include
annually constructed trail systems such as the North Slope Borough
Community Winter Access Trail (CWAT; BLM 2023). Snow trail usage will
cease with the spring thaw (April/May 2024), and the majority of
cleanup will occur during demobilization at this time. Final stages of
cleanup and trail inspection will occur by air (see Equipment
Mobilization, Demobilization, and Summer Clean-up).
A 610-m (2,000-ft) long by 30-m (100-ft) wide snow airstrip will be
constructed at the Tulageak well site. No fuel will be stored at the
airstrip. A 2.4-hectare (ha) (6-acre [ac], 152-m-by-152 m, 500-ft-by-
500-ft) snow pad will be constructed at the Tulageak well site to
support testing, cleanup, plugging, and other associated activities.
Small snow pads (approximately 0.2 ha [0.5 ac]) will also be
constructed to stage materials and equipment for soil-sampling
activities at the West Dease and East Simpson 1 well sites. No water
will be used for snow trail, pad, or airstrip construction.
Equipment Mobilization, Demobilization, and Summer Clean-Up
Large equipment, including mobile camp trailers, drill rigs, along
with other support equipment and supplies, will be moved to the
Tulageak, West Dease, or East Simpson 1 well sites from either the 2P
gravel pads or existing pads at Oliktok (figure 1) based on sea ice and
other environmental conditions. Equipment will be hauled along snow
trails by Steiger Tractors, Tucker Sno-Cats, and D-7 Caterpillar
Tractors. Trips
[[Page 88946]]
to or from Oliktok will take the northern snow trail route, and trips
from the 2P pad will take the southern snow trail route (figure 1; BLM
2023). A total of up to 13 round trips could be required between
January and mid-May 2024, along either or a combination of these 2
routes including 3-4 round trips during both mobilization (January or
February) and demobilization (April or early May), and up to 5 round
trips for resupply during operations.
Additionally, there are two planned resupply routes from
Utqia[gdot]vik to the well sites. A 30-mile resupply snow trail will
follow the Barrow Gas Field Road from Utqia[gdot]vik to the Tulageak
well site, while a second resupply snow road branches off the CWAT
south of Utqia[gdot]vik, heading east to the Tulageak project area
(figure 1). The resupply routes would be used to bring in crews, fuel,
water, ancillary equipment, and supplies throughout the operations
period. As with the other routes, Steiger Tractors, Tucker Sno-cats,
and D-7 Caterpillar Tractors would be used to pull sleds and sleighs on
the resupply routes. During winter operations, there would be
approximately one to three round trips every day along the resupply
routes from Utqia[gdot]vik to the Tulageak well site for fuel,
personnel, water, and supplies. There would be approximately 36-50
total round trips on these routes during the winter season. Access
routes from Wainwright and Atqasuk may also be used to transport crews,
equipment, and vehicles (with the exception of the drill rigs and camp
trailers) to Utqia[gdot]vik or the well sites (figure 1). There would
be up to five to eight round trips expected to occur along these trail
sections during operations.
In addition to ground resupply, two to three fixed-wing support
flights from Deadhorse to the Tulageak snow airstrip will occur over
the course of 8 weeks (up to 24 flights) during winter project
activities. The majority of snow trail and camp cleanup, such as trash
removal and stick-picking, will occur during demobilization in the
spring of 2024. Trash and other waste generated by camp and routine
equipment maintenance will be contained appropriately and transported
to Prudhoe Bay for disposal (BLM 2023).
Camp Setup
Three mobile camps will be required to provide crew lodging during
well site activities. A mobile camp of 20-25 trailers will be required
for the Tulageak well plugging and reclamation. Smaller camps of up to
10 trailers will be necessary for soil-sampling activities at both the
West Dease and East Simpson 1 well sites. Generation of potable water
from snow and disposal of grey water will follow Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation guidance and regulation. Further information
on camp setup is available in BLM's application (BLM 2023).
Tulageak Well Site Surface Debris Removal, Well Plugging, and
Reclamation
Removal of surface debris will occur prior to well plugging. The
amount of debris is expected to be minor because structures, pilings,
and solid waste were removed in 1981. Any remaining debris is likely to
consist of scattered scrap metal or wood near the well and may require
a variety of equipment to fully remove, including excavators, loaders,
cutting torches, power tools, chainsaws, hand tools, and debris
containers (e.g., dumpsters for recyclable scrap metal and solid
waste). Embedded debris that cannot be easily removed will be cut off
below surface and buried with soil. All surface debris removed from
site will be contained and transported back to Prudhoe Bay for
appropriate disposal. In addition to surface debris, a total of 524
cubic meters (m\3\) (685 cubic yards [yd\3\]) of diesel-contaminated
soil (total cubic yards based on previous sampling; see application,
BLM 2023) will be removed preceding any well-plugging activities and
shipped to an appropriate disposal facility.
In 1981, at the conclusion of drilling and evaluation operations,
cement and mechanical plugs were set at a depth of 792 m (2,600 ft) in
the casing followed by 183 m (600 ft) of mining mud and then the upper
610 m (2,000 ft) of casing filled with diesel. Well-plugging operations
will begin by excavating an area of approximately 5-m-by-5-m (15-ft-by-
15-ft) wide and 3 m (10 ft) deep around the well casing. The 610 m
(2,000 ft) of well casing diesel will be removed using an
environmentally safe brine solution, sampled, containerized, and
transported offsite for appropriate hazardous materials disposal, along
with the 183 m (600 ft) of drilling mud. This plugging activity will
generate up to 18,930 liters (l) (5,000 gallons [ga]) of fluids and up
to 24 m\3\ (30 yd\3\) of drilling mud. The fluids and mud will be
stored in appropriate onsite hazardous waste storage containers and
transported offsite for disposal (see application for disposal details,
BLM 2023). Upon removal of diesel and drilling mud, the casing will be
filled with arctic blend cement in accordance with BLM regulations.
Once the cement is fully set, the well casing will be cut off at a
minimum of 3 m (10 ft) below sea level, marked with a welded steel
marker plate, and the excavation backfilled with soil to sea level.
Soil Sampling
In addition to the plugging and cleanup activities at the Tulageak
well site, soil sampling, and site characterization of the West Dease
and East Simpson 1 well sites will also be conducted to determine the
type, location, and volume of drilling waste and contaminated soils at
each location. The sampling will assist in planning future cleanup
activities at the sites (these specific future cleanup activities are
not included in this proposed IHA). Samples will be collected from the
reserve and flare pits, around the wellheads, and where suspected
drilling wastes or piles of wastes are located. Up to 25 samples will
be collected at each site using a small track mounted drill following
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation site characterization
requirements. The drill borings will be approximately 10 cm (4 in) in
diameter and approximately 3 m (10 ft) deep. At both well locations
(West Dease and East Simpson 1), approximately 25 samples will be
collected: 12 samples from the reserve pits, 4 from the flare pits, 4
from the wellheads, and 5 from piles of known or suspected drilling
waste.
Summer Cleanup
The majority of snow trail and camp cleanup, such as trash removal
and stick-picking, will occur during demobilization in the spring of
2024 (April-May). However, a single A-star or Jet Ranger type
helicopter will fly the overland snow trail routes and visit each of
the three legacy well sites for a final inspection and to remove any
trash or debris potentially missed during demobilization. Summer
cleanup activities by helicopter will total up to 15 trips with 46
takeoff and landings.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region
Polar bears are the only species of marine mammal managed by the
Service likely to be found within the specified geographic region.
Information on range, stocks, biology, and climate change impacts on
polar bears can be found in appendix A of the supplemental information
(available as described above in ADDRESSES).
Potential Impacts of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals
Surface-Level Impacts on Polar Bears
Disturbance impacts on polar bears will be influenced by the type,
duration, intensity, timing, and location of the source of disturbance.
Disturbance from
[[Page 88947]]
the specified activities would originate primarily from aircraft
overflights (helicopter and fixed wing), tundra travel, well site
plugging and reclamation, well site soil sampling, mobilization and
demobilization, and cleanup activities. The noises, sights, and smells
produced by these activities could elicit variable responses from polar
bears, ranging from avoidance to attraction. When disturbed by noise,
animals may respond behaviorally by walking, running, or swimming away
from a noise source, or physiologically via increased heart rates or
hormonal stress responses (Harms et al. 1997, Tempel and Gutierrez
2003). However, individual response to noise disturbance can be
influenced by previous interactions, sex, age, and maternal status
(Anderson and Aars 2008, Dyck and Baydack 2004). Noise and odors could
also attract polar bears to work areas (Proposed Deterrence Guidelines;
75 FR 21571, April 26, 2010). Attracting polar bears to these locations
could result in human-polar bear interactions, unintentional
harassment, intentional hazing, or possible lethal take in defense of
human life. This proposed IHA, if finalized, would authorize only the
nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of polar bears that may
result from the specified activities and would require mitigation
measures to manage attractants in work areas and reduce the risk of
human-polar bear interactions.
Human-Polar Bear Interactions
A larger percentage of polar bears are spending more time on land
during the open-water season, which may increase the risk for human-
polar bear interactions (Atwood et al. 2016, Rode et al. 2022). Polar
bear interaction plans, personnel training, attractants management, and
polar bear monitoring are mitigation measures used to reduce human-
polar bear interactions and minimize the risks to humans and polar
bears when interactions occur. Polar bear interaction plans detail the
policies and procedures that will be implemented by BLM to avoid
attracting and interacting with polar bears as well as minimizing
impacts to the polar bears. Interaction plans also detail how to
respond to the presence of polar bears, the chain of command and
communication, and required training for personnel. Efficient
management of attractants (e.g., human food, garbage) can prevent polar
bears from associating humans with food, which mitigates the risk of
human-polar bear interactions (Atwood and Wilder 2021). Information
gained from monitoring polar bears near industrial infrastructure can
be useful for better understanding polar bear distribution, behavior,
and interactions with humans. Technology that may be used to facilitate
detection and monitoring of polar bears includes bear monitors, closed-
circuit television, video cameras, thermal cameras, radar devices, and
motion-detection systems. It is possible that human-polar bear
interactions may occur during the specified activities, and mitigation
measures, as described in the applicant's Polar Bear Awareness and
Interaction Plan, will be implemented by BLM to minimize the risk of
human-polar bear interactions during the specified activities.
From mid-July to mid-November, SBS stock polar bears can be found
in large numbers and high densities on barrier islands, along the
coastline, and in the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea,
particularly on and around Barter and Cross Islands (Wilson et al.
2017). This distribution leads to a significantly higher number of
human-polar bear interactions on land and at offshore structures during
the open-water season than other times of the year.
On land, most polar bear observations occur within 2 km (1.2 mi) of
the coastline based on polar bear monitoring reports. Facilities within
the offshore and coastal areas are more likely to be approached by
polar bears, and they may act as physical barriers to polar bear
movements. As polar bears encounter these facilities, the chances for
human-polar bear interactions increase. However, polar bears have
frequently been observed crossing existing roads and causeways, and
they appear to traverse the human-developed areas as easily as the
undeveloped areas based on monitoring reports.
Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Polar Bears
Polar bears experience increased noise and visual stimuli when
fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters fly above them, which may elicit a
biologically significant behavioral response. Sound frequencies
produced by aircraft will likely fall within the hearing range of polar
bears (Nachtigall et al. 2007) and will be audible to polar bears
during flyovers or when operating in proximity to polar bears. Polar
bears likely have acute hearing, with previous sensitivities
demonstrated between 1.4 and 22.5 kilohertz (kHz) (tests were limited
to 22.5 kHz, Nachtigall et al. 2007). When exposed to high-energy
sound, this hearing range may become impaired temporarily (called
temporary threshold shift, or TTS) or permanently (called permanent
threshold shift, or PTS). Species-specific TTS and PTS thresholds have
not been established for polar bears at this time, but TTS and PTS
thresholds have been established for the general group ``other marine
carnivores'' which includes polar bears (Southall et al. 2019). Through
a series of systematic modeling procedures and extrapolations, Southall
et al. (2019) generated modified noise exposure thresholds for both in
air and underwater sound (table 1).
Table 1--Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) Thresholds Established by Southall et al. (2019) Through Modeling and
Extrapolation for ``Other Marine Carnivores,'' Which Includes Polar Bears
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTS PTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Impulsive
Non impulsive ------------------------------------ Non impulsive -----------------------------------
SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air............................................. 157 146 170 177 161 176
Water........................................... 199 188 226 219 203 232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values are weighted for other marine carnivores' hearing thresholds and given in cumulative sound exposure level (SELCUM dB re 20[micro]Pa in air and
SELCUM dB re 1 [micro]Pa in water) for impulsive and non-impulsive sounds, and unweighted peak sound pressure level in air (dB re 20[micro]Pa) and
water (dB 1[micro]Pa) (impulsive sounds only).
During a Federal Aviation Administration test, test aircraft
produced sound at all frequencies measured (50 Hz to 10 kHz) (Healy
1974). At frequencies centered at 5 kHz, jets flying at 300 m (984 ft)
produced \1/3\
[[Page 88948]]
octave band noise levels of 84 to 124 dB, propeller-driven aircraft
produced 75 to 90 dB, and helicopters produced 60 to 70 dB (Richardson
et al. 1995). Thus, the frequency and level of airborne sounds
typically produced by aircraft is unlikely to cause TTS or PTS unless
polar bears are very close to the sound source.
Although neither TTS nor PTS are anticipated during the specified
activities, impacts from aircraft overflights have the potential to
elicit biologically significant behavioral responses from polar bears.
Exposure to aircraft overflights is expected to result in short-term
behavior changes, such as ceasing to rest, walking, or running, and,
therefore, has the potential to be energetically costly. Polar bears
observed during intentional aircraft overflights, conducted to study
impacts of aircraft on polar bear responses, with an average flight
altitude of 143 m (469 ft) exhibited biologically meaningful behavioral
responses during 66.6 percent of aircraft overflights. These behavioral
responses were significantly correlated with the aircraft's altitude,
the bear's location (e.g., coastline, barrier island), and the bear's
activity (Quigley et al. 2022). Polar bears associated with dens
exhibited various responses when exposed to low-flying aircraft,
ranging from increased head movement and observation of the disturbance
to the initiation of rapid movement and/or den abandonment (Larson et
al. 2020). Aircraft activities can impact polar bears across all
seasons; however, aircraft have a greater potential to disturb both
individuals and groups of polar bears on land during the summer and
fall. These onshore polar bears are primarily fasting or seeking
alternative terrestrial foods (Cherry et al. 2009, Griffen et al.
2022), and polar bear responses to aircraft overflights may result in
metabolic costs to limited energy reserves. To reduce potential
disturbance of polar bears during aircraft activities, mitigation
measures, such as minimum flight altitudes over polar bears and their
frequently used areas and flight restrictions around known polar bear
aggregations, will be required when safe to perform these operations
during aircraft activities.
Effects to Denning Polar Bears
Known polar bear dens around the oilfield and other areas of the
North Slope, discovered opportunistically and/or during planned surveys
for tracking marked polar bears and detecting polar bear dens, are
monitored by the Service. However, these sites are only a small
percentage of the total active polar bear dens for the SBS stock in any
given year. Each year, entities conducting operations on the North
Slope coordinate with the Service to conduct surveys to determine the
location of their activities relative to known polar bear dens and
denning habitat. Under past IHAs and ITRs (incidental take
regulations), operators have been required to avoid known polar bear
dens by 1.6 km (1 mi). However, an unknown polar bear den may be
encountered during BLM's activities. In instances, when a previously
unknown den was discovered in proximity to human activity, the Service
implemented mitigation measures such as the 1.6-km (1-mi) activity
exclusion zone around the den and 24-hour monitoring of the den site.
The responses of denning polar bears to disturbance and the
consequences of these responses can vary throughout the denning
process. We divide the denning period into four stages when considering
impacts of disturbance: den establishment, early denning, late denning,
and post-emergence; definitions and descriptions are provided by
Woodruff et al. (2022) and are also located in the 2021-2026 Beaufort
Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021).
Impacts of the Specified Activities on Polar Bear Prey Species
Information on the potential impacts of the specified activities on
polar bear prey species can be found in the supplemental information to
this document (available as described above in ADDRESSES).
Estimated Take
Definitions of Incidental Take Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
Below we provide definitions of three potential types of take of
polar bears. The Service does not anticipate and is not authorizing
lethal take as a part of this IHA; however, the definitions of these
take types are provided for context and background.
Lethal Take
Human activity may result in biologically significant impacts to
polar bears. In the most serious interactions (e.g., vehicle collision,
running over an unknown den causing its collapse), human actions can
result in the mortality of polar bears. We also note that, while not
considered incidental, in situations where there is an imminent threat
to human life, polar bears may be killed. Additionally, though not
considered incidental, polar bears have been accidentally killed during
efforts to deter polar bears from a work area for safety and from
direct chemical exposure (81 FR 52276, August 5, 2016). Unintentional
disturbance of a female polar bear by human activity during the denning
season may cause the female either to abandon her den prematurely with
cubs or abandon her cubs in the den before the cubs can survive on
their own. Either scenario may result in the incidental lethal take of
the cubs.
Level A Harassment
Human activity may result in the injury of polar bears. Level A
harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is defined as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild. We have divided Level
A harassment into events that are likely (>50 percent chance) to result
in the animal's mortality (referred to as ``serious Level A
harassment'') and events that are not likely (<50 percent chance) to
result in the animal's mortality (referred to as ``non-serious Level A
harassment''). Numerous actions can cause take by Level A harassment,
such as creating a disturbance that separates mothers from dependent
cubs (Amstrup 2003), inducing early den emergence (Amstrup and Gardner
1994, Rode et al. 2018), or repeatedly interrupting the nursing or
resting of cubs to the extent that it impacts the cubs' body condition.
Level B Harassment
Level B harassment for nonmilitary readiness activities means any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to disturb
a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, feeding, or sheltering. Changes in
behavior that disrupt biologically significant behaviors or activities
for the affected animal are indicative of take by Level B harassment
under the MMPA. Such reactions include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Fleeing (running or swimming away from a human or a human
activity);
Displaying a stress-related behavior such as jaw or lip-
popping, front leg stomping, vocalizations, circling, intense staring,
or salivating;
Abandoning or avoiding preferred movement corridors such
as ice floes, leads, polynyas, a segment of coastline, or barrier
islands;
Using a longer or more difficult route of travel instead
of the intended path;
[[Page 88949]]
Interrupting breeding, sheltering, or feeding;
Moving away at a fast pace (adult) and cubs struggling to
keep up;
Temporary, short-term cessation of nursing or resting
(cubs);
Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a prolonged period
(adults);
Loss of hunting opportunity due to disturbance of prey; or
Any interruption in normal denning behavior that does not
cause injury, den abandonment, or early departure of the female with
cubs from the den site.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other
behavioral responses may be indicative of take by Level B harassment.
Relatively minor changes in behavior such as the animal raising its
head or temporarily changing its direction of travel are not likely to
disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns, and the Service
does not view such minor changes in behavior as indicative of a take by
Level B harassment. It is also important to note that eliciting
behavioral responses that equate to take by Level B harassment
repeatedly may result in Level A harassment.
Surface Interactions
We analyzed take by Level B harassment for polar bears that may
potentially be encountered and impacted during BLM's oil well plugging
and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, pad, and airstrip
construction, and summer cleanup activities within the specified
geographic region.
Impact Area
To assess the area of potential impact from the project activities,
we calculate the area affected by project activities where harassment
is possible. We refer to this area as an impact area. Behavioral
response rates of polar bears to disturbances are highly variable, and
data to support the relationship between distance to polar bears and
disturbance is limited. Dyck and Baydack (2004) found sex-based
differences in the frequencies of vigilance bouts, which involves an
animal raising its head to visually scan its surroundings, by polar
bears in the presence of vehicles on the tundra. However, in their
summary of polar bear behavioral response to ice-breaking vessels in
the Chukchi Sea, Smultea et al. (2016) found no difference between
reactions of males, females with cubs, or females without cubs. During
the Service's coastal aerial surveys, 99 percent of polar bears that
responded in a way that indicated possible Level B harassment (polar
bears that were running when detected or began to run or swim in
response to the aircraft) did so within 1.6 km (1 mi), as measured from
the ninetieth percentile horizontal detection distance from the flight
line. Similarly, Andersen and Aars (2008) found that female polar bears
with cubs (the most conservative group observed) began to walk or run
away from approaching snowmobiles at a mean distance of 1,534 m (0.95
mi). Thus, while future research into the reaction of polar bears to
anthropogenic disturbance may indicate a different zone of potential
impact is appropriate, the current literature suggests that the 1.6-km
(1.0-mi) impact area will encompass most polar bear harassment events.
Estimated Harassment
We estimated Level B harassment using the spatio-temporally
specific encounter rates and temporally specific harassment rates
derived in the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021)
in conjunction with the specified project activity information. Some
portion of SBS bears may occur within the Chukchi Sea at a given time.
However, the Beaufort Sea ITR rates do not explicitly account for this
possibility, and the project area for this proposed IHA occurs only
within the geographical boundary of the SBS subpopulation. Therefore,
our analyses account only for SBS bears located within the SBS
subpopulation boundary. Distribution patterns of polar bears along the
coast of the SBS were estimated in Wilson et al. (2017) by dividing the
North Slope Coastline into 10 equally sized grids and applying a
Bayesian hierarchical model based on 14 years of aerial surveys in late
summer and early fall. Wilson et al. (2017) estimated 140 polar bears
per week along the coastline (a measurement that included barrier
islands), however not with uniform distributions. The study found that
disproportionality high densities of bears occur in grids 6 and 9,
which contain known large congregating areas such as Kaktovik and Cross
Island and has required polar bear density correction factors in
previously issued ITAs. The vast majority of the coastline within the
project area in this proposed IHA falls within grids 1-4 (although a
small portion of the project area is located outside of Wilson et al.'s
(2017) study area near the City of Wainwright). The Wilson et al. 2017
values for grids 1-4 are similar to those in the North Slope area where
the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021) encounter
rates were developed; therefore, we believe those values are applicable
to the project area in this proposed IHA and do not require any
correction factor for polar bear densities in our analyses.
Table 2--Definitions of Variables Used in Harassment Estimates of Polar
Bears on the Coast of the North Slope of Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B...................................... bears encountered in an impact
area for the entire season.
a...................................... coastal exposure area.
a...................................... inland exposure area.
r...................................... occupancy rate.
e...................................... coastal open-water season bear-
encounter rate in bears/
season.
e...................................... coastal ice season bear-
encounter rate in bears/
season.
e...................................... inland open-water season bear-
encounter rate in bears/
season.
e...................................... inland ice season bear-
encounter rate in bears/
season.
t...................................... ice season harassment rate.
t...................................... open-water season harassment
rate.
B...................................... number of estimated Level B
harassment events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 provides the definition for each variable used in the
formulas to calculate the number of potential harassment events. The
variables defined in table 2 were used in a series of formulas to
estimate the total harassment from surface-level interactions.
Encounter rates were originally calculated as polar bears encountered
per square km per season. As a part of their Request, BLM provided the
Service with digital geospatial files that included the maximum
expected human occupancy (i.e., rate of occupancy [ro] for each
individual structure (e.g., snow trails, snow pads) of their specified
activities for each season of the IHA period. Using the buffer tool in
ArcGIS, we created a spatial file of a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer around all
industrial structures. We binned the structures according to their
seasonal occupancy rates by rounding them up into tenths (10 percent,
20 percent, etc.). We determined the impact area of each bin by first
calculating the area within the buffers of 100 percent occupancy
locations. We then removed the area of the 100 percent occupancy
buffers from the project impact area and calculated the area within the
90 percent occupancy buffers. This iterative process continued until we
calculated the area within all buffers. The areas of impact were then
clipped by coastal and inland zone geospatial files to determine the
coastal areas of impact (ac) and inland areas of impact (ai) for each
occupancy bin. This
[[Page 88950]]
process was repeated for each season of the project.
Impact areas were multiplied by the appropriate encounter rate to
obtain the number of polar bears expected to be encountered in the
impact area per season (Bes). The equation below (equation
1) provides an example of the calculation of polar bears encountered in
the ice season for an impact area in the coastal zone.
Bes = ac * eci
Equation 1
To generate the number of estimated Level B harassments for each
area of interest, we multiplied the number of polar bears in the area
of interest per season by the proportion of the season the area is
occupied, the rate of occupancy, and the harassment rate (equation 2).
Bt = Bes * Sp * ro * ti
Equation 2
Aircraft Impacts on Polar Bears
Polar bears in the project area will likely be exposed to the
visual and auditory stimulation associated with the applicant's fixed-
wing and helicopter activities; however, these impacts are likely to be
minimal and short-term. Aircraft activities may cause disruptions in
the normal behavioral patterns of polar bears as either an auditory or
visual stimulus, thereby resulting in incidental Level B harassment.
Mitigation measures, such as minimum flight altitudes over polar bears
and restrictions on sudden changes to aircraft movements and direction,
will be required if this authorization is finalized to reduce the
likelihood that polar bears are disturbed by aircraft.
Estimating Harassment Rates of Aircraft Activities
We updated the analysis used to estimate aircraft impacts on polar
bears from the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021)
to include altitude-specific harassment rates. These altitude-specific
harassment rates were estimated using observational data from fixed-
wing aircraft overflights (Quigley 2022) and helicopter activities
(Quigley et al. in review). In these studies, aerial searches along the
northern coast of Alaska between Point Barrow and the western Canadian
border were flown and polar bears were approached at different
altitudes. Researchers recorded behavioral changes during these
approaches and evaluated when and if Level B harassment occurred. Polar
bears that did not exhibit behavioral changes consistent with
harassment were then re-approached at progressively lower altitudes,
reaching as low as 38 m (100 ft). Because polar bears were encountered
at discrete-valued altitudes that differed by hundreds of feet, the
actual altitude at which harassment would not occur likely exists
between the altitude of observed harassment and the lowest altitude at
which harassment was not observed. We estimated this theoretical
harassment altitude by calculating the average of the observed
harassment altitude and lowest non-harassment altitude. Polar bears
that exhibited a behavioral change consistent with harassment on their
first approach could potentially have shown this same response if the
aircraft were at a higher altitude, thus we could not identify an
altitude at which no harassment would occur due to a lack of a ``non-
harassment'' observation of that polar bear. To avoid negatively
biasing results by using these altitudes unadjusted, theoretical
harassment altitudes were estimated using the average theoretical
altitude of harassment for all observations of an equal or greater
altitude (i.e., only including polar bears with two or more observed
altitudes and excluding other polar bears harassed on initial
approach). Where there were three or fewer observations to make such an
average, theoretical harassment altitude was estimated as the average
of 610 m (2,000 ft) and the observed harassment altitude. We chose 610
m (2,000 ft) because it was the lowest altitude at which no harassment
was observed by either aircraft type.
Using the altitude-specific harassment rates, five categories of
flights were created: takeoffs, landings, low-altitude flights (defined
as those between 122 m [400 ft] and 305 m [1,000 ft] altitude), mid-
altitude flights (defined as those between 305 m [1,000 ft] and 457 m
[1,500 ft] altitude), and high-altitude flights (defined as those
between 457 m [1,500 ft] and 610 m [2,000 ft] altitude). Harassment
rates were assigned to each of these flight categories using the
harassment rate for the lowest altitude in the category (e.g., for low-
altitude flights, the harassment rate estimated for 122 m [400 ft] was
used). This binning method of using the lowest harassment rate in the
bin allowed our estimates to be inclusive of possible changes in
altitude due to variable flight conditions (table 3).
Table 3--Harassment Rates for the Five Categories of Flights for Fixed-
Wing Aircraft and Helicopter Overflights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight category Fixed-wing Helicopter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeoffs................................ 0.89 0.99
Landings................................ 0.89 0.99
Low-altitude flights (122-305 m)........ 0.56 0.97
Mid-altitude flights (305-457 m)........ 0.005 0.14
High-altitude flights (457-610 m)....... <0.001 0.002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We used the harassment rate associated with 61 m (200 ft) for takeoffs
and landings.
Estimating Area of Impact for Aircraft Activities
For each category of the flight path (i.e., takeoff, low-altitude
travel, mid-altitude travel, high-altitude travel, and landing), we
calculated an impact area and duration of impact using flight hours or
flight path information provided in the Request. We used flights logs
available through www.flightaware.com (FlightAware), a website that
maintains flight logs in the public domain, to estimate impact areas
and flight hours for takeoffs and landings. We estimated a takeoff
distance of 2.41 km (1.5 mi) that would be impacted for 10 minutes. We
estimated a landing distance of 4.83 km (3 mi) per 305 m (1,000 ft) of
altitude that would be impacted for 10 minutes per landing. To estimate
the impact area of traveling segments, we subtracted the takeoff and
landing areas from the total area of the flight path. The duration of
impact for traveling flights was either provided in the Request or
calculated using the length of the flight and estimated flight speeds,
provided by BLM, of 193 km per hour (120 mi per hour) or 257 km per
hour (160 mi per hour) for fixed-winged aircraft. Polar bear encounter
rates vary both spatial and temporally (table 4). We accounted for
temporal variation by determining if the flight takes place during the
open-
[[Page 88951]]
water (July 19-November 11) or the ice season (November 12-July 18).
Spatial variation was accounted for by determining total proportion of
the flight over coastal or inland zones. The coastal zone is defined as
the offshore and onshore areas within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the coastline,
and the inland zone is defined as the onshore area greater than 2 km
(1.2 mi) from the coastline. Once spatially referenced, all flight
paths were buffered by 1.6 km (1 mi), which is consistent with aircraft
surveys conducted by the Service and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
between August and October during most years from 2000 to 2014
(Schliebe et al. 2008, Atwood et al. 2015, Wilson et al. 2017). In
these surveys, 99 percent of groups of polar bears that exhibited
behavioral responses consistent with Level B harassment were observed
within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the aircraft.
Table 4--Seasonal polar bear encounter rates by zone, table adapted from
2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR
[86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice Season (July 19-November 11) 0.05
bears/km\2\.
Open-water Season (November 12-July 18)
1.48 bears/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inland Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice Season (July 19-November 11) 0.004
bears/km\2\.
Open-water Season (November 12-July 18)
0.005 bears/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the total number of Level B harassment events
estimated due to the specified activities, we calculated the number of
flight hours for each flight category (i.e., takeoffs, low-altitude
travel, mid-altitude travel, high-altitude travel, and landings) for
each zone and season combination. These values were then used to
calculate the proportion of the season that aircraft occupied their
impact areas (i.e., takeoff area, landing area, or traveling segment
impact areas). This proportion-of-season metric is equivalent to the
occupancy rate (ro) generated for surface-level interaction harassment
estimates. The total impact area for each of the flight categories was
multiplied by the zone and season-specific polar bear encounter rate to
determine the number of polar bears expected in that area for the
season (i.e., Bes, as seen in equation 1). This number was then
multiplied by the proportion of the season to determine the number of
polar bears expected in that area when flights are occurring, and the
appropriate harassment rate based on flight altitude to estimate the
number of polar bears that may be harassed as a result of the flights
(as seen in equation 2). Table 5 shows a summary of aircraft operations
during the specified activities and the values used to estimate Level B
harassment of polar bears during aircraft operations.
Table 5--Summary of Aircraft Operations by Season and Activity During the Proposed IHA Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice season (fixed-wing Open-water season (helicopter only)
aircraft only) ---------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
Activity Forward- Tulageak East Simpson 1 West Dease Snow trail
Winter support looking inspection inspection and inspection and inspection and
infrared and cleanup cleanup cleanup cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altitude *.............................................. High Low High High Low Low
Total Flights........................................... 24 12 7 2 2 4
Proportion of Season.................................... 0.00444 0.01200 0.00041 0.00017 0.00002 0.00451
Proportion of Flight.................................... 0.6688 0.1454 0.096 0.5541 1 0.077
in Coastal Zone........................................
Proportion of Flight.................................... 0.3312 0.8546 0.904 0.4459 0 0.923
in Inland Zone.........................................
Total Encounter Rate.................................... 0.0347 0.0107 0.1466 0.8223 1.4800 0.1186
(bears/km\2\/season) **................................
Harassment Rate......................................... 0.001 0.56 0.002 0.002 0.97 0.97
Total Takeoffs and Landings............................. 24 0 14 4 4 24
Landing Time/Season..................................... 0.0007 0 0.0008 0.0002 0.0002 0.0014
Takeoff Time/Season..................................... 0.0007 0 0.0008 0.0002 0.0002 0.0014
Landing and Takeoff Harassment Rate..................... 0.89 0.89 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Number of Level B Harassment of Activity................ 0.0012 0.0006 0.0490 0.0140 0.0142 0.0883
Total number of Level B harassment across all aircraft activities 0.1673 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* High-altitude flight is defined as between 457 m (1,500 ft) and 610 m (2,000 ft) altitude. Low altitude is defined as between 122 m (400 ft) and 305 m
(1,000 ft) altitude. There are no mid-altitude flights considered for this project.
** Accounts for unequal encounter rates over coastal and inland zones.
Analysis Approach for Estimating Harassment During Aerial Infrared
(AIR) Surveys
Typically, entities operating on the North Slope conduct polar bear
den surveys using AIR during every denning season. Although the purpose
for these surveys is to detect polar bear dens to mitigate impacts,
polar bears on the surface can be harassed by the overflights. These
surveys are not conducted along specific flight paths and generally
overlap previously surveyed areas within the same flight. Therefore, we
used different methodology to estimate harassment of surface polar
bears during AIR surveys.
We estimated the period of AIR surveys to last 12 days with a
maximum of 6 hours of flight time per day, resulting in a maximum total
of 72 flight-hours per year. To determine the number of hours AIR
flights are likely to survey coastal and inland zones, we identified
the area where project activities and denning habitat overlap and
buffered this area by 1.6 km (1 mi). We then divided the buffered
denning habitat by zone and determined the proportion of coastal and
inland denning habitat. Using this proportion, we estimated the number
of flight hours spent within each zone and determined
[[Page 88952]]
the proportion of the ice season in which AIR surveys impacted each
zone (see Estimating Area of Impact for Aircraft Activities). We then
estimated the aircraft's impact area for takeoffs, survey altitude, and
landings. The area impacted by AIR surveys was multiplied by the
seasonal encounter rates of polar bears for the appropriate zones and
the proportion of the ice season in which AIR flights were flown to
determine the number of polar bears encountered. We then multiplied the
number of polar bears encountered per zone by the altitude harassment
rate to determine the number of polar bears harassed during AIR
surveys.
Estimated Harassment from Aircraft Activities
Using the approaches described above, we estimated the total number
of polar bears expected to be harassed by the aircraft activities
during the proposed IHA period. Total number of expected Level B
harassment events for this proposed IHA by aircraft activities,
including AIR surveys, is 0.1673 bears, rounded up to one bear.
Denning Analysis
Below we provide a complete description and results of the polar
bear den simulation model used to assess impacts to denning polar bears
from disturbance associated with all phases of the specified
activities. We updated the analysis used to estimate impacts on denning
polar bears from the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5,
2021) to include information on anticipated survival rates for recently
emerged polar bear cubs.
Den Simulation
We simulated dens across the entire North Slope of Alaska, ranging
from the areas identified as denning habitat (Durner et al. 2006, 2013;
Durner and Atwood 2018) contained within the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) in the west to the Canadian border in the east.
To simulate dens on the landscape, we relied on the estimated number of
dens in three different regions of northern Alaska provided by Atwood
et al. (2020). These included the NPRA, the area between the Colville
and Canning rivers (CC), and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
The mean estimated number of dens in each region during a given winter
were as follows: 12 dens (95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 3-26) in
the NPRA, 25 dens (11-47) in the CC region, and 14 dens (5-30) in the
Arctic NWR (Patil et al. 2022). For each iteration of the model
(described below), we drew a random sample from a gamma distribution
for each of the regions based on the above parameter estimates, which
allowed uncertainty in the number of dens in each area to be
perpetuated through the modeling process. Specifically, we used the
method of moments (Hobbs and Hooten 2015) to develop the shape and rate
parameters for the gamma distributions as follows: NPRA (12\2\/
5.8\2\,12/5.8\2\), CC (25\2\/9.5\2\,25/9.5\2\), and Arctic NWR (14\2\/
6.3\2\,14/6.3\2\).
Because not all areas in northern Alaska are equally used for
denning and some areas do not contain the requisite topographic
attributes required for sufficient snow accumulation for den
excavation, we did not simply randomly place dens on the landscape.
Instead, we followed a similar approach to that used by Wilson and
Durner (2020) with some additional modifications to account for the
differences in denning ecology in the CC region related to a preference
to den on barrier islands and a general (but not complete) avoidance of
actively used industrial infrastructure. Using the USGS polar bear den
catalogue (Durner et al. 2020), we identified polar bear dens that
occurred on land in the CC region and that were identified either by
Global Positioning System (GPS)-collared polar bears or through
systematic surveys for denning polar bears (Durner et al. 2020). This
process resulted in a sample of 37 dens of which 22 (i.e., 60 percent)
occurred on barrier islands. For each iteration of the model, we then
determined how many of the estimated dens in the CC region occurred on
barrier islands versus the mainland.
To make this determination, we first took a random sample from a
binomial distribution to determine the expected number of dens from the
den catalogue (Durner et al. 2020) that should occur on barrier islands
in the CC region during that given model iteration;
nbarrier~Binomial(37, 22/37), where 37 represents the total
number of dens in the den catalogue (Durner et al. 2020) in the CC
region suitable for use (as described above) and 22/37 represents the
observed proportion of dens in the CC region that occurred on barrier
islands. We then divided nbarrier by the total number of
dens in the CC region suitable for use (i.e., 37) to determine the
proportion of dens in the CC region that should occur on barrier
islands (i.e., pbarrier). We then multiplied
pbarrier with the simulated number of dens in the CC region
(rounded to the nearest whole number) to determine how many dens were
simulated to occur on barrier islands in the region.
In NPRA, the den catalogue (Durner et al. 2020) data indicated that
two dens occurred outside of defined denning habitat (Durner et al.
2013), so we took a similar approach as with the barrier islands to
estimate how many dens occur in areas of NPRA with the den habitat
layer during each iteration of the model;
nhabitat~Binomial(15, 13/15), where 15 represents the total
number of dens in NPRA from the den catalogue (Durner et al. 2020)
suitable for use (as described above), and 13/15 represents the
observed proportion of dens in NPRA that occurred in the region with
den habitat coverage (Durner et al. 2013). We then divided
nhabitat by the total number of dens in NPRA from the den
catalogue (i.e., 15) to determine the proportion of dens in the NPRA
region that occurred in the region of the den habitat layer
(phabitat). We then multiplied phabitat with the
simulated number of dens in NPRA (rounded to the nearest whole number)
to determine the number of dens in NPRA that occurred in the region
with the den habitat layer. Because no infrastructure exists and no
activities are proposed to occur in the area of NPRA without the den
habitat layer, we considered the potential impacts of activity only to
those dens simulated to occur in the region with denning habitat
identified (Durner et al. 2013).
To account for the potential influence of BLM's activities on the
distribution of polar bear selection of den sites, we again relied on
the subset of dens from the den catalogue (Durner et al. 2020)
discussed above. We further restricted the dens to only those occurring
on the mainland because no permanent infrastructure occurred on barrier
islands with identified denning habitat. We then determined the minimum
distance to permanent infrastructure that was present during the year
when the den was identified. The proportion of empirical dens <=5 km
(3.1 mi) from infrastructure was 0.25. Thus, for the mainland portion
of simulated dens in the CC region, we determined how many should be
simulated to occur <=5 km from infrastructure, and how many should be
simulated to occur >5 km from infrastructure at each iteration of the
model. The number of mainland dens <=5 km from infrastructure was
modeled as n<=5km~ Binomial(nCC_mainland,0.25)
where nCC_mainland is the number of dens simulated to occur
on the mainland portion of the CC region during one iteration of the
model. The number of dens >5 km from infrastructure in the mainland
portion of the CC region was calculated as: n>5km=
nCC_mainland-n<=5km
To determine the distribution of dens, we used a scaled adaptive
kernel
[[Page 88953]]
density estimator applied to observed den locations, which took the
form
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26DE23.002
where the adaptive bandwidth for the location of the ith den and each
location in the study area. The indicator functions allowed the
bandwidth to vary abruptly between the mainland and barrier islands.
The parameters were chosen so that the density estimate approximated
the observed density of dens and our understanding of likely den
locations in areas with low sampling effort.
To simulate dens on the landscape, we first assigned each section
of potential den habitat with a relative probability of use by polar
bears based on the utilization distribution described above. We then
randomly assigned dens to a section of potential denning habitat with a
multinomial distribution based on the assigned relative probabilities
for each section of potential denning habitat. For dens being simulated
on the mainland in the CC region, an additional step was required. We
first assigned a simulated den whether it should occur near
infrastructure (i.e., <=5 km) or away (i.e., >5 km) from
infrastructure. We subset the kernel density grid cells that occurred
<=5 km from infrastructure and those that occurred >5 km. We then
selected a section of potential denning habitat to simulate the den
from the appropriate kernel density subset (i.e., near/far from
infrastructure) based on their underlying probabilities using a
multinomial distribution.
For each simulated den, we assigned dates of key denning events;
den entrance, birth of cubs, when cubs reached 60 days of age, den
emergence, and departure from the den site after emergence. These
represent the chronology of each den under undisturbed conditions.
We selected the entrance date for each den from a normal
distribution parameterized by entrance dates of radio-collared polar
bears in the SBS stock that denned on land included in Rode et al.
(2018) and published in USGS (2018; n=52, mean=November 11, standard
deviation [SD]=18 days); we truncated this distribution to ensure that
all simulated dates occurred within the range of observed values (i.e.,
September 12 to December 22).
We selected a date of birth for each litter from a normal
distribution with a mean birth date of December 15 and an SD of 10
days. We then restricted random samples of birth dates to occur between
December 1 and January 15, which is believed to be when most cubs are
born (Messier et al. 1994, Van de Velde et al. 2003).
We selected the emergence date as a random draw from an asymmetric
Laplace distribution with parameters [mu]=81.0, [sigma]=4.79, and
p=0.79 estimated from the empirical emergence dates in Rode et al.
(2018) and published in USGS (2018, n=52) of radio-collared polar bears
in the SBS subpopulation that denned on land using the mleALD function
from package `ald' (Galarzar and Lachos 2018) in program R (R Core
Development Team). We constrained simulated emergence dates to occur
within the range of observed emergence dates (January 9 to April 9) and
not to occur prior to cubs reaching an age of 60 days.
Finally, we assigned the number of days each family group spent at
the den site post-emergence based on values reported in three
behavioral studies, Smith et al. (2007, 2010, 2013), and Robinson
(2014), which monitored dens near the target area immediately after
emergence (n=25 dens). Specifically, we used the mean (8.0) and SD
(5.5) of the dens monitored in these studies to parameterize a gamma
distribution using the method of moments (Hobbs and Hooten 2015) with a
shape parameter equal to 8.0\2\/5.5\2\ and a rate parameter equal to
8.0/5.5\2\; we selected a post-emergence, pre-departure time for each
den from this distribution.
Additionally, we assigned each den a litter size by drawing the
number of cubs from a multinomial distribution with probabilities
derived from litter sizes (n=25 litters) reported in Smith et al.
(2007, 2010, 2013) and Robinson (2014). Because there is some
probability that a female naturally emerges with 0 cubs, we also wanted
to ensure this scenario was captured. However, it is difficult to
parameterize the probability of litter size equal to 0 because it is
rarely observed.
Therefore, we assumed that dens with denning durations less than 79
days, which is the shortest den duration in which a female was later
observed with cubs, had a litter size equal to 0. Only 3 polar bears in
the USGS (2018) data met these criteria, leading to an assumed
probability of a litter size of 0 at emergence being 0.07. We therefore
assigned the probability of 0, 1, 2, or 3 cubs as 0.07, 0.15, 0.71, and
0.07, respectively.
Impact Area of Specified Activities
The model developed by Wilson and Durner (2020) provides a template
for estimating the level of potential impact on denning polar bears
during the specified activities while also considering the natural
denning ecology of polar bears in the region. The approach developed by
Wilson and Durner (2020) also allows for the incorporation of
uncertainty in both the metric associated with denning polar bears and
in the timing and spatial patterns of the specified activities when
precise information on those activities is unavailable. We assumed any
dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) from project activities were exposed to
disturbance.
AIR Surveys
We assumed that all exploration and transit areas would have two
AIR surveys flown each winter. The first survey would occur between
December 1 and December 25, 2023, and the second survey between
December 15, 2023, and January 10, 2024, with a minimum of 24 hours
between surveys. During each iteration of the model, each AIR survey
was randomly assigned a probability of detecting dens. Whereas previous
analyses have used the results of Wilson and Durner (2020) to inform
this detection probability, two additional studies (Smith et al. 2020,
Woodruff et al. 2022b) have been conducted since Wilson and Durner
(2020) was published. Woodruff et al. (2022b) considered the
probability of detecting heat signatures from artificial polar bear
dens. They did not find a relationship between den snow depth and
detection and estimated a mean detection rate of 0.24. A recent study
by Smith et al. (2020) estimated that the detection rate for actual
polar bear dens in northern Alaska was 0.45 and also did not report any
relationship between detection and den snow depth. Because the study by
Wilson and Durner (2020) reported detection probability only for dens
with less than 100 cm (39.4 in) snow depth, we needed to correct it to
also include those dens with greater than 100 cm (39.4 in) snow depth.
Based on the distribution of snow depths used by Wilson and Durner
(2020) derived from data in Durner et al. (2003), we determined that 24
percent of dens have snow depths greater than 100 cm. After taking
these into account, the overall detection probability from Wilson and
Durner (2020) including dens with snow depths greater than 100 cm was
estimated to be 0.54. This led to a mean detection of 0.41 and a SD of
0.15 across the three studies. We used these values, and the method of
moments (Hobbs and Hooten 2015), to inform a Beta distribution:
[[Page 88954]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26DE23.003
from which we drew a detection probability (p) for each of the
simulated AIR surveys during each iteration of the model.
Model Implementation
For each iteration of the model, we first determined which dens
were exposed to the specified activities. We assumed that any den
within 1.6 km (1 mi) of human activities was exposed (MacGillivray et
al. 2003, Larson et al. 2020), excluding those detected during an AIR
survey (but only if activity did not occur prior to AIR surveys). We
then identified the stage in the denning period when the exposure
occurred based on the date range of the activities the den was exposed
to: den establishment (i.e., initial entrance into den until cubs are
born), early denning (i.e., birth of cubs until they are 60 days old),
late denning (i.e., date cubs are 60 days old until den emergence) and
post-emergence (i.e., the date of den emergence until permanent
departure from the den site). We then determined whether the exposure
elicited a response by the denning polar bear based on probabilities
derived from the reviewed case studies (Woodruff et al. 2022a).
Specifically, we divided the number of cases that documented
responses associated with either a Level B harassment (i.e., potential
to cause a disruption of behavioral patterns), Level A harassment
(i.e., potential to injure an animal), or lethal take (i.e., cub
abandonment) of polar bears by the total number of cases with that
combination of period and exposure type (table 6). Level B harassment
was applicable to both adults and cubs, if present, whereas Level A
harassment and lethal take were applicable to only cubs. AIR surveys
were considered to be a source of potential impact because these
surveys are conducted with fixed-wing aircraft that fly at altitudes
below 457 m (1,500 ft). Level B harassment as a result of AIR surveys
was applicable to only adults and only during the den establishment
period because this period is the only denning period when AIR surveys
have been observed to cause disturbance to denning polar bears (Amstrup
1993, Woodruff et al. 2022b). In thousands of hours of AIR surveys
conducted in northern Alaska over the last decade, we are not aware of
a single instance of a polar bear abandoning its den during the early
denning period due to an AIR survey overflight. These responses would
be readily observable on the thermal cameras, and the fact that none
have been observed indicates that den abandonment very likely does not
occur given the brief duration of the aircraft overflight and the
distance and altitude of the aircraft from the den site.
For dens exposed to activity, we used a multinomial distribution
with the probabilities of different levels of take for that period
(table 6) to determine whether a den was disturbed or not. If a lethal
take was simulated to occur, a den was not allowed to be disturbed
again during the subsequent denning periods because the outcome of that
denning event was already determined.
The level of impact associated with a disturbance varied according
to the severity and timing of the exposure (table 6). Exposures that
resulted in emergence from dens prior to cubs reaching 60 days of age
were considered lethal takes of cubs. If an exposure resulted in a
Level A harassment during the late denning period, we first assigned
that den a new random emergence date from a uniform distribution that
ranged between the first date of exposure during the late denning
period and the original den emergence date. We then determined whether
that den was disturbed during the post-emergence period, but the
probability of disturbance was dependent on whether a den was disturbed
(i.e., Level A harassment) during the late denning period or not (table
6). If an exposure resulted in a Level A harassment during the post-
emergence period, we assigned the den a new time spent at the den site
post-emergence from a uniform distribution that ranged from 0 to the
original simulated time at the den post-emergence.
Recent research suggests that litter survival is related to the
date of den emergence and time spent at the den post-emergence
(Andersen et al. in review), with litters having higher survival the
later they emerge in the spring and the longer they spend at the den
site after emergence. To determine if dens disturbed during the late
denning and/or post-emergence period(s) experienced serious Level A
harassment, we relied on estimates of litter survival until
approximately 100 days post emergence derived from the analysis of
empirical data on the dates of emergence from the den and departure
from the den site (Anderson et al. in review). These estimates are
dependent on the date of emergence and time spent at the den site post-
emergence. For each den disturbed during the late denning and/or post-
emergence periods, we obtained a random sample of regression
coefficients from the posterior distribution and calculated the
probability of a litter surviving approximately 100 days post-emergence
with the following equation:
logit(s) = [beta]0 + [beta]1emerge +
[beta]2depart
where s is the probability of at least one cub being alive
approximately 100 days post-emergence, [beta]0 is the
intercept coefficient, [beta]1 is the coefficient associated
with the Julian date of emergence (emerge), and [beta]2 is
the coefficient associated with the number of days the family group
stayed at the den site post-emergence before departing (depart). If s
was calculated to be <0.50, then the cubs in that simulated litter were
assigned a take by serious Level A harassment, otherwise they were
assigned a take by non-serious Level A harassment. These probabilities
are based on estimates of litter survival derived from the analysis of
empirical data on the dates of emergence from the den and departure
from the den site (Anderson et al. in review).
We developed the code to run this model in program R (R Core
Development Team 2020) and ran 10,000 iterations of the model (i.e.,
Monte Carlo simulation) to derive the estimated number of dens
disturbed and associated levels of harassment. We then determined the
number of cubs that would have lethal take, serious Level A harassment,
non-serious Level A harassment, and Level B harassment, and the number
of females that would experience Level B harassment. Table 6 shows the
probability of an exposure resulting in the types of harassment of
denning polar bears.
[[Page 88955]]
Table 6--Probability That an Exposure Elicited a Response by Denning Polar Bears That Would Result in Level B
Harassment, Level A Harassment, Lethal Take, and No Take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period Level B Level A Lethal No take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Den Establishment............................... 0.380 NA NA 0.620
Early Denning................................... NA NA 0.180 0.820
Late Denning.................................... 0.000 * 0.490 0.000 0.510
Post-emergence-Undisturbed...................... 0.220 * 0.780 0.000 0.000
Post-emergence-Disturbed........................ 0.429 * 0.571 0.000 0.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment was applicable to both adults and cubs, if present; Level A harassment and lethal take were
applicable to cubs only and were not possible during the den establishment period, which ended with the birth
of the cubs. Probabilities were calculated from the analysis of 56 case studies of polar bear responses to
human activity. During the early denning period, there was no Level A harassment for cubs, only lethal take.
Level A harassment is considered ``serious'' when the disturbed emergence and/or time at den site post
emergence led to an estimate of litter survival <0.50. We provide two sets of take probabilities for the post-
emergence period. The first (Post-emergence-Undisturbed) is the set of probabilities when a den has not been
disturbed during the late denning period. The second (Post-emergence-Disturbed) is the set of probabilities
for a den that was disturbed during the late denning period (Rode et al. 2018, Andersen et al. in review).
* The assignment of serious and non-serious Level A harassment is a function of when a simulated disturbance
occurred in comparison to the anticipated emergence date and/or den departure date.
Model Results
On average, we estimated 3.18 (median=3; 95 percent CI: 0-8) land-
based dens in the area that were potentially exposed to disturbance
from the specified activities during the proposed IHA period. Estimates
for different levels of take are presented in table 7. We also
estimated that take by Level B harassment from AIR surveys was never
greater than a mean of 0.43 (median=0; 95 percent CI: 0-2). The
distributions of both non-serious Level A harassment, serious Level A
harassment, and lethal take were non-normal and heavily skewed, as
indicated by markedly different mean and median values. The heavily
skewed nature of these distributions has led to a mean value that is
not representative of the most common model result.
The median number, which is the midpoint value of a frequency
distribution of all model results, for serious Level A harassment is 0
and the median number for lethal take is 0, indicating the most common
model result is 0 for both serious Level A harassment and lethal take
over the 1-year IHA period. The probability of greater than or equal to
1 serious Level A harassment is 0.15, and the probability of greater
than or equal to 1 lethal take is 0.33.
In considering whether a polar bear's mortality may result from the
specified activities, we use the combined probability that a greater
than or equal to 1 serious Level A harassment or lethal take will occur
because both types of take are likely to result in a polar bear's
mortality. The combined probability that a greater than or equal to 1
serious Level A harassment or lethal take occur within a simulation
iteration will be less than or equal to the sum of probabilities for
each of those types of takes considered separately. This is because
iterations where both types of take occur will be counted only once
when considering the combined probability, not once for each type of
take. Due to the low probability (0.42) of greater than or equal to 1
serious Level A harassment/lethal take that could occur within the
proposed IHA period, combined with the median of 0, we do not
anticipate the specified activities will result in either serious Level
A harassment or lethal take of polar bears during the proposed IHA
period. The median number of non-serious Level A harassment was 2. The
probability of greater than or equal to 1 take by non-serious Level A
harassment is over a 50 percent chance (0.67), indicating that less
than half of the models resulted in 0 takes by non-serious Level A
harassment.
Table 7--Results of the Den Disturbance Model for the Specified Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of take Probability Mean Median 95 percent CI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Harassment............................. 0.90 3.60 3 0-11
Non-Serious Level-A Harassment................. 0.67 2.26 2 0-8
Serious Level-A Harassment..................... 0.15 0.34 0 0-3
Lethal......................................... 0.33 0.79 0 0-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates are provided for the probability, mean, median, and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) for Level B
harassment, non-serious Level A harassment, serious Level A harassment, and lethal take. The probabilities
represent the probability of >= 1 take of a polar bear during each denning season.
Critical Assumptions
To conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount of Level
B and non-serious Level A harassment, several critical assumptions were
made.
Level B harassment is equated herein with behavioral responses that
indicate harassment or disturbance but not to the extent that cause the
animal to experience significant biological consequences. Our estimates
do not account for variable responses by polar bear age and sex;
however, sensitivity of denning polar bears was incorporated into the
analysis. The available information suggests that polar bears are
generally resilient to low levels of disturbance. Females with
dependent young and juvenile polar bears are physiologically the most
sensitive (Andersen and Aars 2008) and most likely to experience
harassment from disturbance. Not enough information on composition of
the SBS polar bear stock in the specified project area is available to
incorporate individual variability based on age and sex or to predict
its influence on harassment estimates. Our estimates are derived from a
variety of sample populations with various age and sex structures, and
we assume the exposed population will have a similar composition and,
therefore, the response rates are applicable.
The estimates of behavioral response presented here do not account
for the individual movements of animals in response to the specified
activities. Our assessment assumes animals remain stationary (i.e.,
density does not change). Not enough information is available about the
movement of polar bears in response to specific disturbances to refine
this assumption.
SBS polar bears create maternal dens on the sea ice as well as on
land. The
[[Page 88956]]
den simulation used in our analysis does not simulate dens on the sea
ice. However, the specified activities will be conducted entirely on
land and only a small percentage of the activities will occur within
1.6 km (1 mi) of the coastline. Therefore, the impact of the activities
will be primarily limited to land-based dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) of
the project infrastructure, and this impact area will be surveyed
during AIR surveys to mitigate impacts on denning polar bears.
The specific segments of the snow roads depicted in figure 1 that
will be used for mobilization, resupply, and demobilization are not
currently known. For the purposes of the above analyses and estimates
of take by non-serious Level A and Level B harassment, and the risks of
lethal take or take by serious Level A harassment, we assumed that all
routes might potentially be used at some point during the specified
activities. This assumption results in an overestimate of the take that
is likely to occur over the 1-year IHA period but accounts for all
possible operational scenarios.
Sum of Harassment From All Sources
A summary of total estimated take via Level B and non-serious Level
A harassment during the projects by source is provided in table 8. The
potential for serious Level A and lethal take was also explored. Lethal
take or serious Level A harassment would not occur outside of denning
polar bears because the level of sound and visual stimuli experienced
by polar bears on the surface would not be significant enough to result
in injury or death. Denning polar bears, however, may be subject to
repeated exposures, significant energy expenditure from den abandonment
or departure, and/or potential impacts to a cub if the den is abandoned
or departed prematurely. The Service estimated a low probability (0.35)
for greater than or equal to 1 serious Level A harassment/lethal take
of a denning polar bear and a median of 0 takes of denning polar bears
by serious Level A harassment and lethal take for the 1-year duration
of the IHA period.
Table 8--Total Estimated Takes by Harassment of Polar Bears and Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
estimated
Source and type of harassment harassment
events
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bears on the surface-summer--Level B harassment......... 7
Bears on the surface-winter--Level B harassment......... 6
Aircraft activities-summer and winter--Level B 1
harassment.............................................
Denning bears--Level B harassment....................... 4
Denning bears--non-serious Level A harassment........... 3
---------------
Total............................................... 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determinations and Findings
In making these draft findings, we considered the best available
scientific information, including: the biological and behavioral
characteristics of the species, the most recent information on species
distribution and abundance within the area of the specified activities,
the current and expected future status of the stocks (including
existing and foreseeable human and natural stressors), the potential
sources of disturbance caused by the project, and the potential
responses of marine mammals to this disturbance. In addition, we
reviewed applicant-provided materials, information in our files and
datasets, published reference materials, and consulted with species
experts.
Small Numbers
For our small numbers determination, we consider whether the
estimated number of polar bears to be subjected to incidental take is
respectively small relative to the population size of the species or
stock.
1. We estimate that BLM's proposed specified activities in the
specified geographic region will cause the take of no more than 18
polar bears by Level B harassment and no more than 3 polar bears by
non-serious Level A harassment during the 1-year period of this
proposed IHA (see table 8). Take of 21 animals is 2.32 percent of the
best available estimate of the current SBS stock size of 907 animals
(Bromaghin et al. 2015, Atwood et al. 2020) ((21/907)x100[ap]2.32
percent) and represents a ``small number'' of polar bears of that
stock.
2. The footprint of the specified activities within the specified
geographic region is small relative to the range of the SBS stock of
polar bears. Polar bears from the SBS range well beyond the boundaries
of the proposed IHA region. As such, the IHA region itself represents
only a subset of the potential area in which the polar bear may occur.
Thus, the Service concludes that a small portion of the SBS polar bear
populations may be present in the specified geographic region during
the time of the specified activities.
Small Numbers Conclusion
We propose a finding that take of up to 21 SBS polar bears
represents a small number of the SBS stock of polar bears.
Negligible Impact
For our negligible impacts determination, we consider the
following:
1. The distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears
indicate that relatively few polar bears will occur in the specified
areas of activity at any particular time and, therefore, few polar
bears are likely to be affected.
2. The documented impacts of previous activities similar to the
specified activities on polar bears, taking into consideration the
baseline of existing impacts from factors such as oil and gas
activities in the area and other ongoing or proposed ITAs, suggests
that the types of activities analyzed for this proposed IHA will have
minimal effects limited to short-term, temporary behavioral changes.
This is true not only for Level B harassment but also for the non-
serious Level A harassment. While non-serious Level A harassment has
the potential to result in the injury of one or more cubs during the
denning period, this type of harassment is not anticipated to result in
long-term impacts that are likely to result in mortality. Therefore, we
anticipate the specified activities will not have lasting impacts that
could significantly affect an individual polar bear's health,
reproduction, or survival. The limited extent of anticipated impacts on
polar bears is unlikely to adversely affect annual rates of polar bear
survival or recruitment.
3. The IHA, if finalized, would require implementation of
monitoring requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce the
potential impacts of their operations on polar bears. Den detection
surveys for polar bears and adaptive mitigation and management
responses based on real-time monitoring information (described in this
proposed authorization) will be used to avoid or minimize interactions
with polar bears and, therefore, limit potential disturbance of these
animals.
4. The Service does not anticipate any lethal take or serious Level
A harassment that would remove individual polar bears from the
population or prevent their successful reproduction. This proposed IHA
does
[[Page 88957]]
not authorize serious injury take that will likely result in the death
of a polar bear.
We also consider the conjectural or speculative impacts associated
with these specified activities. The specific congressional direction
described below justifies balancing the probability of such impacts
with their severity: If potential effects of a specified activity are
conjectural or speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be
appropriate. A finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if
the probability of occurrence is low, but the potential effects may be
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts
must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species or
stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this balancing
test, the Service will thoroughly evaluate the risks involved and the
potential impacts on marine mammal populations. Such determination will
be made based on the best available scientific information (54 FR
40338, September 29, 1989, quoting 53 FR 8474, March 15, 1988 and 132
Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 1986)).
The potential effects of most concern here are the serious injury
or mortality of cubs that could result from disturbances during certain
periods of the denning season. The Service estimated that the
probability of greater than or equal to one lethal take or take by
serious Level A harassment that is likely to result in the mortality of
a denning polar bear is 0.32, combined with a median of 0 takes, within
the 1-year period of this proposed IHA. Therefore, the Service does not
anticipate any lethal take or serious Level A harassment will occur
during the IHA period. If a den is disturbed and lethal take or take by
serious Level A harassment were to occur, this take would be limited to
only cubs during the denning period. Denning females are limited to
take by Level B harassment. Therefore, the number of potentially
available reproductive females that would contribute to recruitment for
the SBS stock would remain unaffected if a den disturbance were to
result in the mortality of the cubs. The loss of a cub or litter would
reduce the annual recruitment rate for the SBS stock of polar bears.
The SBS stock of polar bears is currently estimated as 907 polar
bears (Bromaghin et al. 2015, 2021; Atwood 2020). The loss of one
litter ranges from 0 percent (0 cubs) to approximately 0.33 percent (3
cubs) of the annual SBS stock size of polar bears (((0 cubs to 3 cubs)/
907)x100[ap]0 to 0.33). Cub litter survival was estimated at 50 percent
(90 percent CI: 33-67 percent) for the SBS stock during 2001-2006
(Regehr et al. 2010). A female may lose her litter for several reasons
separate from den disturbance. The determining factor for polar bear
stock growth is adult female survival (Eberhardt 1990). Consequently,
the loss of female cubs has a greater impact on annual recruitment
rates for the SBS stock of polar bears compared to male cubs. If a den
disturbance were to result in the mortality of the entire litter, the
female would be available to breed during the next mating season and
could produce another litter during the next denning season.
Based on the relatively low potential for cub mortality associated
with these specified activities, and the recognition that even if a den
is disturbed, the number of potentially affected cubs would be minimal
and the number of reproductive females in the stock would remain the
same, the Service does not anticipate that the conjectural or
speculative impacts associated with these specified activities warrant
a finding of non-negligible impact or otherwise preclude issuance of
this proposed IHA. We reviewed the effects of the specified well-
plugging and reclamation activities on polar bears, including impacts
from surface interactions, aircraft overflights, and den disturbance.
Based on our review of these potential impacts, past monitoring
reports, and the biology and natural history of polar bears, we
anticipate that such effects will be limited to short-term behavioral
disturbances.
We have evaluated climate change regarding polar bears as part of
the environmental baseline. Climate change is a global phenomenon and
was considered as the overall driver of effects that could alter polar
bear habitat and behavior. The Service is currently involved in
research to understand how climate change may affect polar bears. As we
gain a better understanding of climate change effects, we will
incorporate the information in future authorizations.
We find that the impacts of these specified activities cannot be
reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect SBS polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment
or survival. We therefore find that the total take estimated above and
proposed for authorization will have a negligible impact on SBS polar
bears. We do not propose to authorize lethal take or take by serious
Level A harassment, and we do not anticipate that any lethal take or
take by serious Level A harassment will occur.
Impact on Subsistence Use
Based on past community consultations, locations of hunting areas,
no anticipated overlap of hunting areas and project activities, and the
best scientific information available, including monitoring data from
similar activities, we propose a finding that take caused by the oil
well plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, pad, and
airstrip construction, and summer cleanup activities in the project
area will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
polar bears for taking for subsistence uses during the proposed
timeframe.
While polar bears represent a small portion, in terms of the number
of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the Utqiagvik,
Nuiqsut, Wainwright and Atqasuk communities, their harvest is important
to Alaska Natives. BLM will be required to notify the cities of
Wainwright and Utqiagvik and the Native Villages of Atqasuk and Nuiqsut
of the planned activities and document any discussions of potential
conflict. BLM must make reasonable efforts to ensure that activities do
not interfere with subsistence hunting and that adverse effects on the
availability of polar bears are minimized. Should such a concern be
voiced, development of plans of cooperation (POC), which must identify
measures to minimize any adverse effects, will be required. The POC
will ensure that project activities will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for
subsistence uses. This POC must provide the procedures addressing how
BLM will work with the affected Alaska Native communities and what
actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of
polar bears, as warranted.
The Service has not received any reports and is not aware of
information that indicates that polar bears are being or will be
deterred from hunting areas or impacted in any way that diminishes
their availability for subsistence use by oil well plugging and
reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, pad, and airstrip construction,
and summer cleanup. If there is evidence that these activities are
affecting the availability of polar bears for take for subsistence
uses, we will reevaluate our findings regarding permissible limits of
take and the measures required to ensure continued subsistence hunting
opportunities.
Least Practicable Adverse Impact
We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of mitigation
measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the specified
activities, the best
[[Page 88958]]
available scientific information, and monitoring data during BLM's
activities in the specified geographic region. We propose a finding
that the mitigation measures included within BLM's Request will ensure
least practicable adverse impacts on polar bears (BLM 2023)
Polar bear den surveys at the beginning of the winter season, the
resulting 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone around any known
polar bear dens, and restrictions on the timing and types of activities
in the vicinity of dens will ensure that impacts to denning female
polar bears and their cubs are minimized during this critical period.
Minimum flight elevations over polar bear areas and flight restrictions
around observed polar bears and known polar bear dens will reduce the
potential for aircraft disturbing polar bears. Finally, BLM will
implement mitigation measures to prevent the presence and impact of
attractants in camps such as the use of wildlife-resistant waste
receptacles, daily food waste incineration, and storing hazardous
materials in drums or other secure containers. These measures are
outlined in a polar bear interaction plan that was developed in
coordination with the Service and is part of BLM's application for this
IHA. Based on the information we currently have regarding den and
aircraft disturbance and polar bear attractants, we concluded that the
mitigation measures outlined in BLM's Request (BLM 2023) and
incorporated into this authorization will minimize impacts from the
specified oil well plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail,
pad, and airstrip construction, and summer cleanup activities to the
extent practicable.
Several mitigation measures were considered but determined to be
not practicable. These measures are listed below:
Grounding all flights if they must fly below 457 m (1,500
ft)--Requiring all aircraft to maintain an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft)
at all times is not practicable as some operations may require flying
below 457 m (1,500 ft) to perform necessary inspections or maintain
safety of flight crew. Aircraft are required to fly above 457 m (1,500
ft) at all times within 805 m (0.5 mi) of an observed polar bear unless
there is an emergency.
One-mile buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat--One-mile (1.6-km) buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat is not practicable as much of BLM's proposed project area
occurs within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat; thus, to exclude all
areas within 1.6 km of denning habitat would preclude the planned
activities from occurring.
Prohibition of driving over high relief areas,
embankments, or stream and river crossings--While the denning habitat,
such as high relief areas, embankments, and streams or river banks,
must be considered during tundra travel, complete prohibition is not
practicable. High relief areas, embankments, streams, and rivers occur
throughout the project area. To completely avoid these types of areas
would likely cause personnel to drive further away from established
operational areas and unnecessarily create additional safety concerns.
Furthermore, other mitigation measures to minimize impact to denning
habitats are included and will minimize the risk imposed by driving
over high relief areas, embankments, or stream and river crossings
Use of a broader definition of ``denning habitat'' for
operational offsets--There is no available data to support broadening
the defining features of denning habitat beyond that established by
USGS. Such a redefinition would cause an increase in the area surveyed
for maternal dens, and the associated increase in potential harassment
of polar bears on the surface would outweigh the mitigative benefits.
Establishment of corridors for sow and cub transit to the
sea ice--As there is no data to support the existence of natural
transit corridors to the sea ice, establishment of corridors in the IHA
area would be highly speculative. Therefore, there would be no
mitigative benefit realized by their establishment.
Require all activities to cease if a polar bear is injured
or killed until an investigation is completed--The Service has
incorporated reporting requirements into this proposed authorization
for all polar bear interactions. While it may aid in any subsequent
investigation, ceasing all activities may not be practicable or safe
and, thus, will not be mandated.
Require use of den detection dogs--It is not practicable
or safe to require scent-trained dogs to detect dens due to the large
spatial extent that would need to be surveyed within activity areas.
Require the use of handheld or vehicle-mounted Forward
Looking Infrared (FLIR)--The efficacy rates for AIR have been found to
be four times more likely to detect dens versus ground-based FLIR
(handheld or vehicle-mounted FLIR) due to impacts of blowing snow on
detection. BLM has incorporated into their mitigation measures the use
of handheld or vehicle-mounted FLIR when transiting rivers occurring in
suitable denning habitat, but it is not practicable to use the
equipment during all transit.
Construct safety gates, fences, and enclosures to prevent
polar bears from accessing facilities--This project will require no
permanent facility/structures and encompasses a large area.
Construction and deconstruction of barriers for a moving camp would
increase potential human- polar bear interactions and impacts to polar
bear habitat.
Employ protected species observers (PSOs) for monitoring,
recording, reporting, and implementing mitigation measures--All
personnel will be trained in wildlife observation, employment of PSOs
would not be anticipated to reduce impacts to polar bears. Monitoring,
recording, reporting are described in the IHA application.
Avoid areas of high-density polar bear use (e.g., barrier
islands and coastline) including the establishment of camps and pads--
This measure is not practicable because the legacy wells that this
project is focused on are all located along the coastline, and snow
trail must also cross through these areas to reach the well sites.
Avoid predominantly coastal routes for flight pathways--
This measure is not practicable because the remediation sites are
located along the coast, and aviation access routes to project sites
must occur over the coast.
Restrict activity and travel over polar bear denning
habitat to eliminate or lessen risk of den collapse--This project has
activities that will travel over potential polar bear denning habitat.
BLM has committed to multiple effective mitigation measures to minimize
their potential impacts to polar bear denning habitat and reduce to
chance of den collapse. Therefore, we believe that the probability of
this project's activities causing a den collapse is near zero and
additional mitigation measures would not further reduce the
probability.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance
with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily concluded
that authorizing the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of 18
SBS polar bears by Level B harassment and 3 SBS polar bears by non-
serious Level A harassment during the proposed harassment authorization
period would not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment and, thus, preparation of an environmental
[[Page 88959]]
impact statement for this incidental harassment authorization is not
required by section 102(2) of NEPA or its implementing regulations. We
are accepting comments on the draft environmental assessment as
specified above in DATES and ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all
Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or
endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Prior to issuance of a final IHA, the Service will
complete intra-Service consultation under section 7 of the ESA on our
proposed issuance of an IHA. These evaluations and findings will be
made available on the Service's website at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/biological-opinion.
Government-to-Government Consultation
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a
Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We seek their
full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing
conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain
sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information available
to Alaska Tribal organizations and communities. Our efforts are guided
by the following policies and directives:
(1) The Native American Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016);
(2) The Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft form;
see 87 FR 66255, November 3, 2022);
(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000);
(4) Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5,
1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), 3342 (October
21, 2016), and 3403 (November 15, 2021) as well as Director's Order 227
(September 8, 2022);
(5) The Alaska Government-to-Government Policy (a departmental
memorandum issued January 18, 2001); and
(6) the Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with
Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed IHA on federally
recognized Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act) Corporations. The Service has determined that
authorizing the Level B harassment of up to 18 polar bears and non-
serious Level A harassment of up to 3 polar bears from BLM's specified
activities would not have any Tribal implications or ANCSA Corporation
implications and, therefore, Government-to-Government consultation or
Government-to-ANCSA Corporation consultation is not necessary. However,
we invite continued discussion, either about the project and its
impacts or about our coordination and information exchange throughout
the IHA/POC public comment process.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new collection of information that
requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has
previously approved the information collection requirements associated
with IHAs and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0194 (expires 08/31/
2026). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
Proposed Authorization
We propose to authorize the nonlethal, incidental take by Level B
harassment of up to 18 polar bears and nonlethal, incidental take by
non-serious Level A harassment of up to 3 polar bears from the SBS
stock of polar bears. Authorized take will be limited to disruption of
behavioral patterns that may be caused by the oil well plugging and
reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, pad, and airstrip construction,
and summer cleanup activities by BLM in the North Slope Borough of
Alaska between the Wainwright and Oliktok Areas for 1 year from date of
issuance. We do not anticipate or authorize any take by Level A
serious, injury, or death to polar bears resulting from these
activities.
A. General Conditions for the IHA for BLM
1. Activities must be conducted in the manner described in the
revised Request dated September 2023 (received October 5, 2023) for an
IHA and in accordance with all applicable conditions and mitigation
measures. The taking of polar bears whenever the required conditions,
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are not fully
implemented as required by the IHA is prohibited. Failure to follow the
measures specified both in the revised Request and within this proposed
authorization may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation
of the IHA.
2. For the purposes of this authorization, non-serious forms of
Level A harassment accrue to one or more cubs where project-related
activities cause a sow to emerge from a den on or later than February
14, and either:
i. The operator's observations establish that the cub departed the
denning location with the sow on or later than March 5 and that the cub
was approximately average or greater size and/or weight, able to nurse
uninterrupted, and able to maintain close proximity to the sow when
traveling; or
ii. The date of the sow and cub's departure from the denning
location is unknown but the operator's first observation of tracks
indicating that the sow and cub departed from the denning location
occurs on or later than March 20.
3. If project activities cause unauthorized take (i.e., take of
more than 18 polar bears from the SBS stock by Level B harassment or
more than 3 polar bears from the SBS stock by non-serious Level A
harassment, a form of take other than Level B or non-serious Level A
harassment, or take of 1 or more polar bears through methods not
described in the IHA), then BLM must take the following actions:
i. Cease its activities immediately (or reduce activities to the
minimum level necessary to maintain safety);
ii. Report the details of the incident to the Service within 48
hours; and
iii. Suspend further activities until the Service has reviewed the
circumstances and determined whether additional mitigation measures are
necessary to avoid further unauthorized taking.
4. All operations managers, aircraft pilots, and vehicle operators
must receive a copy of this IHA and maintain access to it for reference
at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be
fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the
IHA at all times during project work.
5. This IHA will apply to activities associated with the proposed
project as described in this document and in BLM's revised Request.
Changes to the proposed project without prior authorization may
invalidate the IHA.
6. BLM's revised Request is approved and fully incorporated into
this IHA unless exceptions are specifically noted herein. The revised
Request includes:
i. BLM's original Request for an IHA, dated May 22, 2023, which
includes BLM's Polar Bear Safety, Awareness,
[[Page 88960]]
and Interaction Plan and geospatial files;
ii. BLM's revised Request for an IHA, dated September 2023
(received by the Service October 5, 2023).
7. Operators will allow Service personnel or the Service's
designated representative to visit project work sites to monitor for
impacts to polar bears and subsistence uses of polar bears at any time
throughout project activities so long as it is safe to do so.
``Operators'' are all personnel operating under BLM's authority,
including all contractors and subcontractors.
BLM must implement the following policies and procedures to avoid
interactions and minimize to the greatest extent practicable any
adverse impacts on polar bears, their habitat, and the availability of
these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
B. General Avoidance Measures
1. BLM must cooperate with the Service and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor and mitigate the impacts
of activities on polar bears.
2. Trained and qualified personnel must be designated to monitor
for the presence of polar bears, initiate mitigation measures, and
monitor, record, and report the effects of the activities on polar
bears. BLM must provide all operators with polar bear awareness
training prior to their participation in project activities.
3. A Service-approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction
plan must be on file with the Service Marine Mammal Management office
and available onsite. The interaction plan must include:
i. A description of the proposed activity (i.e., a summary of the
plan of operations during the proposed activity);
ii. A food, waste, and other attractants management plan;
iii. Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
iv. Site-specific polar bear interaction risk evaluation and
mitigation measures;
v. Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
vi. Polar bear observation and reporting procedures.
4. BLM must contact potentially affected subsistence communities
and hunter organizations to discuss potential conflicts caused by the
activities and provide the Service documentation of communications as
described in D. Measures to Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users.
5. Mitigation measures for aircraft. BLM must undertake the
following activities to limit disturbance from aircraft activities:
i. Operators of support aircraft shall, at all times, conduct their
activities at the maximum distance practicable from concentrations of
polar bears.
ii. Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter operations within the IHA
area must maintain a minimum altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) above ground
level when safe and operationally possible.
iii. Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, will aircraft
operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within 805 m (0.5
mi) of a polar bear observed on ice or land measured in a straight line
between the polar bear and the ground directly underneath the aircraft.
Helicopters may not hover or circle above such areas or within 805 m
(0.5 mi) of such areas. If weather conditions or operational
constraints necessitate operation of aircraft at altitudes below 457 m
(1,500 ft), the operator must avoid areas of known polar bear
concentrations and should take precautions to avoid flying directly
over or within 805 m (0.5 mi) of these areas.
iv. Aircraft may not be operated in such a way as to separate
individual polar bears from a group (i.e., two or more polar bears).
6. Mitigation measures for winter activities. BLM must undertake
the following activities to limit disturbance around known polar bear
dens:
i. BLM must obtain record of two aerial infrared (AIR) surveys of
all denning habitat located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of specified
activities in an attempt to identify maternal polar bear dens. The
first survey obtained must occur between December 1 and December 25,
2023, and the second survey obtained must occur between December 15,
2023, and January 10, 2024, with at least 24 hours occurring between
the completion of the first survey and the beginning of the second
survey.
ii. All observed or suspected polar bear dens must be reported to
the Service prior to the initiation of activities.
iii. If a suspected den site is located, BLM will immediately
consult with the Service to analyze the data and determine if
additional surveys or mitigation measures are required. The Service
will determine whether the suspected den is to be treated as a putative
den for the purposes of this IHA.
iv. Operators must observe a 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion
zone around all putative polar bear dens during the denning season
(November-April, or until the female and cubs leave the areas). Should
a suspected den be discovered within 1 mile of activities, work must
cease, and the 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 BLM must
comply with any additional measures specified.
v. In determining the denning habitat that requires surveys, use
the den habitat map developed by the USGS. A map of potential coastal
polar bear denning habitat can be found at: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/asc/science/polar-bear-maternal-denning?qt-science_center_objects=4#qt-science_center_objects.
C. Monitoring
1. Operators must provide onsite observers and implement the
Service-approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction plan to
apply mitigation measures, monitor the project's effects on polar bears
and subsistence uses, and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
2. Onsite observers must be present during all operations and must
record all polar bear observations, identify and document potential
harassment, and work with personnel to implement appropriate mitigation
measures.
3. Operators shall cooperate with the Service and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of project
activities on polar bears. Where information is insufficient to
evaluate the potential effects of activities on polar bears and the
subsistence use of this species, BLM may be required to participate in
joint monitoring efforts to address these information needs and ensure
the least practicable impact to this resource.
5. Operators must allow Service personnel or the Service's
designated representative to visit project work sites to monitor
impacts to polar bears and subsistence use at any time throughout
project activities so long as it is safe to do so.
D. Measures To Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users
BLM must conduct its activities in a manner that, to the greatest
extent practicable, minimizes adverse impacts on the availability of
polar bears for subsistence uses.
1. BLM will be required to develop a Service-approved POC if,
through community consultation, concerns are raised regarding impacts
to subsistence harvest or Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
[[Page 88961]]
2. If required, BLM will implement the Service-approved POC.
3. Prior to conducting the work, BLM will take the following steps
to reduce potential effects on subsistence harvest of polar bears:
i. Avoid work in areas of known polar bear subsistence harvest;
ii. Notify the cities Wainwright and Utqiagvik and the Native
Villages of Atqasuk and Nuiqsit of the proposed project activities;
iii. Work to resolve any concerns of potentially affected Alaska
Native Tribal organizations and corporations regarding the project's
effects on subsistence hunting of polar bears;
iv. If any unresolved or ongoing concerns of potentially affected
Alaska Native Tribal organizations and corporations remain, modify the
POC in consultation with the Service and subsistence stakeholders to
address these concerns; and
v. Implement Service-required mitigation measures that will reduce
impacts to subsistence users and their resources.
E. Reporting Requirements
BLM must report the results of monitoring to the Service Marine
Mammals Management office via email at: [email protected].
1. In-season monitoring reports.
2. Activity progress reports. BLM must:
(i) Notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
(ii) Provide the Service weekly progress reports of any significant
changes in activities and/or locations; and
(iii) Notify the Service within 48 hours after ending of
activities.
3. Polar bear observation reports. BLM must report, within 48
hours, all observations of polar bears and potential polar bear dens
during any project activities. Upon request, monitoring report data
must be provided in a common electronic format (to be specified by the
Service). Information in the observation report must include, but need
not be limited to:
i. Date and time of each observation;
ii. Locations of the observer and polar bears (GPS coordinates if
possible);
iii. Number of polar bears;
iv. Sex and age class--adult, subadult, cub (if known);
v. Observer name and contact information;
vi. Weather, visibility, and if at sea, sea state, and sea-ice
conditions at the time of observation;
vii. Estimated closest distance of polar bears from personnel and
facilities;
viii. Type of work being conducted at time of sighting;
ix. Possible attractants present;
x. Polar bear behavior--initial behavior when first observed (e.g.,
walking, swimming, resting, etc.);
xi. Potential reaction--behavior of polar bear potentially in
response to presence or activity of personnel and equipment;
xii. Description of the encounter;
xiii. Duration of the encounter; and
xiv. Mitigation actions taken.
4. Human--polar bear interaction reports. BLM must report all
human--polar bear interaction incidents immediately, and not later than
48 hours after the incident. Human--polar bear interactions include:
i. Any situation in which there is a possibility for unauthorized
take. For instance, when project activities exceed those included in an
IHA, when a mitigation measure was required but not enacted, or when
the injury or death of a polar bear occurs. Reports must include all
information specified for an observation report in paragraphs (3)(i)-
(xiv) of this section E, a complete detailed description of the
incident, and any other actions taken.
ii. Injured, dead, or distressed polar bears that are clearly not
associated with project activities (e.g., animals found outside the
project area, previously wounded animals, or carcasses with moderate to
advanced decomposition or scavenger damage) must also be reported to
the Service immediately, and not later than 48 hours after discovery.
Photographs, video, location information, or any other available
documentation must be included.
6. Final report. The results of monitoring and mitigation efforts
identified in the marine mammal avoidance and interaction plan must be
submitted to the Service for review within 90 days of the expiration of
this IHA. Upon request, final report data must be provided in a common
electronic format (to be specified by the Service). Information in the
final report must include, but need not be limited to:
i. Copies of all observation reports submitted under the IHA;
ii. A summary of the observation reports;
iii. A summary of monitoring and mitigation efforts including
areas, total hours, total distances, and distribution;
iv. Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability
of polar bears during monitoring;
v. Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
vi. A summary and analysis of the distribution, abundance, and
behavior of all polar bears observed; and
vii. Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
Request for Public Comments
If you wish to comment on this proposed authorization, the
associated draft environmental assessment, or both documents, you may
submit your comments by either of the methods described in ADDRESSES.
Please identify whether you are commenting on the proposed
authorization, draft environmental assessment, or both, make your
comments as specific as possible, confine them to issues pertinent to
the proposed authorization, and explain the reason for any changes you
recommend. Where possible, your comments should reference the specific
section or paragraph that you are addressing. The Service will consider
all comments that are received before the close of the comment period
(see DATES). The Service does not anticipate extending the public
comment period beyond the 30 days required under section
101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA.
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
become part of the administrative record for this proposal. Before
including your address, telephone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your
entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comments to withhold from public review your personal identifying
information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Peter Fasbender,
Assistant Regional Director Fisheries and Ecological Services, Alaska
Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-28428 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P