[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61288-61314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24371]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2021-0055; FXES111607MRG01-212-FF07CAMM00]
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities;
Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for Southern Beaufort Sea
Stock of Polar Bears in the Prudhoe Bay Unit and Point Thomson Unit of
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, received a request
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 from JADE Energy, LLC,
for authorization to take by Level B harassment a small number of polar
bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) stock incidental to oil and
gas exploratory activities scheduled to occur between December 1, 2021,
through November 30, 2022. These activities include mobilization,
constructing ice roads and ice pads, drilling wells, and associated
cleanup in the Prudhoe Bay Unit and Point Thomson Unit of the North
Slope of Alaska. Mobilization would occur in December 2021, along a
winter trail stretching east from Deadhorse, Alaska, to Point Thomson,
Alaska. Prepacking of snow and construction of ice roads and pads would
begin mid-December 2021, and drilling would begin at JADE #1 pad in
late-January 2022. If conditions are favorable, drilling on JADE #2 pad
would take place in mid-March 2022, preceding cleanup activities, which
are proposed to be completed by July 15, 2022. We estimate these
activities may result in the nonlethal incidental take of up to two
[[Page 61289]]
SBS stock polar bears. This proposed authorization, if finalized, will
be for take of two SBS stock polar bears by Level B harassment only. No
lethal or Level A take of polar bears is likely or requested, and,
therefore, such take is not included in this proposed authorization.
DATES: Comments on this proposed incidental harassment authorization
and the accompanying draft environmental assessment must be received by
December 6, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may view this proposed
authorization, the application package, supporting information, draft
environmental assessment, and the list of references cited herein at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2021-0055, or
these documents may be requested as described under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. You may submit comments on the proposed
authorization by one of the following methods:
U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2012-0055, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W),
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
Electronic submission: Federal eRulemaking Portal at:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2021-0055.
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, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS 341, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska
99503, by email at R7mmmregulatory@fws.gov or by telephone at 1-800-
362-5148. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, 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) within
a specific geographic region for periods 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 authorize this harassment if we find 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 these species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses 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 such
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'' 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 impact'' as separate and distinct considerations 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 takes of marine mammals
and evaluate if that take 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 project activities, but they are
not so restrictive as to make project activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete.
If the requisite findings are made, we will issue an IHA, which
will 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 such taking by harassment.
Summary of Request
On May 19, 2021, the Service received a request on behalf of JADE
Energy, LLC (JADE), for nonlethal incidental harassment of small
numbers of SBS stock polar bears during mobilization, well drilling,
construction of ice roads and pads, and cleanup activities in the
Prudhoe Bay Unit (PBU) and Point Thomson Unit (PTU) of the North Slope
of Alaska for a period of 1 year (December 1, 2021, to November 30,
2022) (hereafter referred to as the ``Request''). After discussions
with the Service regarding project timelines and mitigation measures,
we received
[[Page 61290]]
project shapefiles on May 25, 2021, and a revised Request on June 9,
2021, which was deemed adequate and complete. JADE further amended
their June 9, 2021, Request to include changes to the location of JADE
#2 pad, JADE #2 ice road, and planned location of the winter trail.
This final Request--which is also adequate and complete--was received
August 2, 2021.
Description of Specified Activities and Specific Geographic Region
The specified activities (hereafter referred to as the ``project'')
consists of mobilization activities, construction of ice roads and
pads, drilling wells, and cleanup and supporting activities. All
activities occur within Alaska's North Slope planning area. The North
Slope planning area has 1,225 tracts that lie between the National
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPRA) and the boundary of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic Refuge). The southern boundary of the
North Slope planning area is the Umiat baseline. Mobilization
activities will stretch east from Deadhorse in the PBU to Point Thomson
in the PTU and will not extend into the Arctic Refuge. JADE is the
majority owner and operator of Alaska State oil and gas lease ADL
343112, which is located approximately 96.6 kilometers (km) (60 miles
[mi]) east of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and 94 km (59 mi) west of Kaktovik,
Alaska. ADL 343112 is located within the southeast portion of the PTU
and consists of 266.06 hectares (ha) (657.45 acres [ac]) of land.
Facilities used during the duration of the project activities are
located in Point Thomson at PTU central pad. JADE #1 is approximately
9.09 km (5.65 mi) southeast, and JADE #2 is located approximately 6.37
km (3.96 mi) southwest, of PTU central pad (figure 1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.038
Staging and Mobilization
An overland winter trail stretching from Deadhorse to Point Thomson
will be used for initial mobilization and resupply throughout the
project. The winter trail is planned to be constructed by Exxon Mobil
Alaska Production Inc. (EMAP); however, if EMAP is unable to construct
the winter trail prior to JADE activities, JADE will construct the
winter trail. Approximately 42 round trips of drilling supplies, fuel,
and materials will be hauled by Pisten Bullys and Steiger tractor
trailer units along the winter trail. During drilling and testing,
supply hauls along the winter trail will be limited to every third day,
generally consisting of two Pisten Bullys and two Steigers.
Mobilization would begin January 16, 2022, and demobilization would be
completed by April 29, 2022, with equipment being staged at PTU West
Pad during the summer.
[[Page 61291]]
Ice Road and Pad Construction
One ice road, 5.95 km (3.7 mi) long, will be constructed south from
the end of the PTU gravel road system to JADE #1--a 3.34-ha (8.26-ac)
ice pad. A secondary ice road, 4.1 km (2.55 mi) long, will be
constructed west from the PTU gravel road system to JADE #2, which will
be similar in size to JADE #1. Preparation for the construction of ice
roads and pads is set to occur from December 15, 2021, to January 2,
2022, and would involve two operators and approximately 7 days of work.
Construction would proceed immediately after this activity, with eight
operators working 12-hour day shifts for approximately 8 days to be
completed by January 16, 2022. Maintenance of roads and pads would be
required throughout the project and would be conducted by five
operators working a day shift. Once drilling begins, ice roads will
have daily traffic to shuttle crew to and from the pad(s) via busses
from Point Thomson with approximately four trips per day.
Well Drilling and Cleanup
Drilling equipment will be mobilized from PTU West Pad to JADE #1
starting on January 16, 2022, and drilling will begin January 29, 2022.
If drilling attempts are successful at JADE #1, the drill rig and
associated drilling equipment will be moved to JADE #2 on March 7,
2022. If drilling is conducted at JADE #2, activities will begin
approximately on March 13, 2022, and be completed on April 20, 2022.
Following drilling activities, JADE has proposed to contract one
helicopter in early July to perform flyovers of the project area to
identify any debris that may have been left behind during winter
operations. The cleanup crew will inspect all camp locations and any
area where field activities occurred. All cleanup work is to be
completed by July 15, 2022. The area of cleanup will not extend beyond
the project area, and during transit aircraft used are expected to
maintain 1,500 feet (ft) altitude above ground level (AGL) to avoid
disturbance.
Mitigation Measures
JADE will be working with EMAP to perform two aerial infrared (AIR)
surveys. The first survey will be conducted between November 25 and
December 15, and the second survey will be conducted between December 5
and December 31. In addition to AIR surveys, JADE will be using
handheld and vehicle-mounted forward-looking infrared (FLIR) to locate
maternal dens along any major drainages on the winter trail, snow
drifts greater than 5 ft in height along the winter trail and ice
roads, snow piles around each pad, and any other areas that may provide
suitable snow buildup for denning polar bears. In the event a den is
located, JADE will maintain a 1.6-km (1-mi) exclusion zone around the
den, cease nearby activities or reduce essential activities, increase
communication of personnel, and continuously monitor the den. Aircraft
will be flown at a minimum of 1,500 ft AGL and will not land or take
off if a bear is within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the landing/takeoff site.
Additionally, work is targeted to be complete no later than July 18
prior to open-water season, which marks an increase in polar bear
presence onshore.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region
Polar bears comprise 19 stocks ranging across 5 countries and 4
ecoregions that reflect the polar bear dependency on sea-ice dynamics
and seasonality (Amstrup et al. 2008). Two stocks occur in the United
States (Alaska) with ranges that extend to adjacent countries: Canada
(SBS stock) and the Russia Federation (the Chukchi/Bering Seas [CBS]
stock). The SBS stock is the only stock found in the specified
geographic region. Therefore, the description below focuses on the SBS
stock and general polar bear biology and behavior.
Polar Bear Biology
Polar bears are distributed throughout the ice-covered seas and
adjacent coasts of the Arctic region. Polar bears typically occur at
low, uneven densities throughout their circumpolar range (DeMaster and
Stirling 1981, Amstrup et al. 2011, Hamilton and Derocher 2019) in
areas where the sea is ice-covered for all or part of the year. They
are typically most abundant on sea ice, near polynyas (i.e., areas of
persistent open water) and fractures in the ice, and over relatively
shallow continental shelf waters with high marine productivity (Durner
et al. 2004). This sea-ice habitat favors foraging for their primary
prey, ringed seals (Pusa hispida), and other species such as bearded
seals (Erignathus barbatus) (Thiemann et al. 2008, Cherry et al. 2011,
Stirling and Derocher 2012). Polar bears prefer to remain on the sea
ice year-round throughout most of their range; however, an increasing
proportion of stocks are spending prolonged periods of time onshore
(Rode et al. 2015, Atwood et al. 2016). While time spent on land occurs
primarily in late summer and autumn (Rode et al. 2015, Atwood et al.
2016), they may be found throughout the year in the onshore and
nearshore environments. Polar bear distribution in coastal habitats is
often influenced by the movement of seasonal sea ice (Atwood et al.
2016, Wilson et al. 2017) and its direct and indirect effects on
foraging success and, in the case of pregnant females, also dependent
on the availability of suitable denning habitat (Durner et al. 2006,
Rode et al. 2015, Atwood et al. 2016).
In 2008, the Service listed polar bears as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.;
ESA), due to the loss of sea-ice habitat caused by climate change (73
FR 28212, May 15, 2008). The Service later published a final rule under
section 4(d) of the ESA for the polar bear providing measures that are
necessary and advisable for the conservation of polar bears (78 FR
11766, February 20, 2013). The Service designated critical habitat for
polar bear populations in the United States effective January 6, 2011
(75 FR 76086, December 7, 2010) identifying geographic areas that
contain features that are essential for the conservation of a
threatened or endangered species and that may require special
management or protection. Polar bear critical habitat units include
barrier island habitat, sea-ice habitat (both described in geographic
terms), and terrestrial denning habitat (a functional determination).
Barrier island habitat includes coastal barrier islands and spits along
Alaska's coast; it is used for denning, refuge from human disturbance,
access to maternal dens and feeding habitat, and travel along the
coast. Sea-ice habitat is located over the continental shelf and
includes water 300 meters (m) (~984 ft) or less in depth. Terrestrial
denning habitat includes lands within 32 km (~20 mi) of the northern
coast of Alaska between the Canadian border and the Kavik River and
within 8 km (~5 mi) between the Kavik River and Utqia[gdot]vik. The
total area designated under the ESA as critical habitat covers
approximately 484,734 km\2\ (~187,157 mi\2\) and is entirely within the
lands and waters of the United States. A digital copy of the final rule
designating critical habitat is available at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2009-0042 or at: http://www.fws.gov/r7/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/federal_register_notice.pdf.
Polar Bear Stocks
The current total polar bear population is estimated at
approximately 26,000 individuals (95 percent Confidence Interval (CI) =
22,000-31,000; Wiig et al. 2015, Regehr et al. 2016) and comprises 19
stocks
[[Page 61292]]
ranging across 5 countries and 4 ecoregions that reflect the polar bear
dependency on sea-ice dynamics and seasonality (Amstrup et al. 2008).
Two stocks occur in the United States (Alaska) with ranges that extend
to adjacent countries: Canada (the Russia Federation (the Chukchi/
Bering Seas [CBS] stock). In Alaska, polar bears have historically been
observed as far south in the Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island and the
Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971). Management and conservation concerns for
the SBS and CBS polar bear stocks include sea-ice loss due to climate
change, human-bear conflict, oil and gas industry activity, oil spills
and contaminants, marine shipping, disease, and the potential for
overharvest (USFWS 2016, Regehr et al. 2017). Most notably, reductions
in physical condition, growth, and survival of polar bears have been
associated with declines in sea ice (Regehr et al. 2007, Rode et al.
2014, Bromaghin et al. 2015, Lunn et al. 2016). The attrition of summer
Arctic sea ice is expected to remain a primary threat to polar bear
populations (Amstrup et al. 2008, Stirling and Derocher 2012), since
projections indicate continued climate warming at least through the end
of this century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014,
Atwood et al. 2016) (see Climate Change, below, for further details). A
detailed description of the SBS polar bear stock can be found in the
Service's revised Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Stock Assessment Report
announced in the Federal Register on June 24, 2021 (86 FR 28526).
Digital copies of the revised Stock Assessment Report are available at:
https://www.fws.gov/alaska/sites/default/files/2021-06/Southern%20Beaufort%20Sea%20SAR%20Final_May%2019rev.pdf.
Southern Beaufort Sea Stock
The SBS polar bear stock is shared between Canada and Alaska.
Radio-telemetry data, combined with eartag returns from harvested
bears, suggest that the SBS stock occupies a region with a western
boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska (Scharf et al. 2019), and an eastern
boundary near Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, Canada (Durner et al.
2018).
In 2020, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) produced the most recent
population estimates for the Alaska portion of the SBS stock (Atwood et
al. 2020), which are based on mark-recapture and collared bear data
collected from the SBS stock from 2001 to 2016. The SBS stock declined
from 2003 to 2006 (this was also reported by Bromaghin et al. 2015)
before stabilizing from 2006 through 2015. Despite the increase in size
from 2009 to 2012, low survival in 2013 appears to have offset those
gains. The number of bears in the SBS stock is thought to have remained
constant since the Bromaghin et al. (2015) estimate of 907 bears. This
number is also supported by survival rate estimates provided by Atwood
et al. (2020) that were relatively high in 2001-2003, decreased during
2004-2008, then improved in 2009, and remained high until 2015, except
for much lower rates in 2012.
In Alaska during the late summer/fall period (July through
November), polar bears from the SBS stock often occur along the coast
and barrier islands, which serve as travel corridors, resting areas,
and to some degree, foraging areas. Based on oil and gas industry
(hereafter, ``Industry'') observations and coastal survey data acquired
by the Service (Wilson et al. 2017), encounter rates between humans and
polar bears are higher during mid-July to mid-November than in any
other season. An average of 140 polar bears may occur on shore during
any week during the period July through November between Utqiagvik and
the Alaska-Canada border (Wilson et al. 2017). The length of time polar
bears spend in these coastal habitats has been linked to sea-ice
dynamics (Rode et al. 2015, Atwood et al. 2016). The remains of
subsistence-harvested bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) at Cross and
Barter islands provide a readily available food attractant in these
areas (Schliebe et al. 2006). However, the contribution of bowhead
carcasses to the diet of SBS polar bears varies annually (e.g.,
estimated as 11-26 percent and 0-14 percent in 2003 and 2004,
respectively) and by sex, likely depending on carcass and seal
availability as well as sea-ice conditions (Bentzen et al. 2007).
Polar bears have no natural predators (though cannibalism is known
to occur; Stirling et al. 1993). However, their life-history (e.g.,
late maturity, small litter size, prolonged breeding interval) is
conducive to low intrinsic population growth (i.e., growth in the
absence of human-caused mortality), which was estimated at 6 percent to
7.5 percent for the SBS stock during 2004-2006 (Hunter et al. 2010,
Regehr et al. 2010). The lifespan of wild polar bears is approximately
25 years (Rode et al. 2020). Females reach sexual maturity at 3-6 years
old giving birth 1 year later (Ramsay and Stirling 1988). SBS stock
females typically give birth at 5 years old (Stirling et al. 1976,
Lentfer and Hensel 1980). On average, SBS stock females produce litter
sizes of 1.9 cubs (SD=0.5; Smith et al. 2007, 2013; Robinson 2014) at
intervals that vary from 1 to 3 or more years depending on cub survival
(Ramsay and Stirling 1988) and foraging conditions. For example, when
foraging conditions are unfavorable, polar bears may delay reproduction
in favor of survival (Derocher et al. 1992, Eberhardt 2002). The
determining factor for polar bear stock growth is adult female survival
(Eberhardt 1990). In general, rates above 90 percent are essential to
sustain polar bear stocks (Amstrup and Durner 1995) given low cub
litter survival, which was estimated at 50 percent (90 percent CI: 33-
67 percent) for the SBS stock during 2001-2006 (Regehr et al. 2010). In
the SBS, the probability that adult females will survive and produce
cubs-of-the-year is negatively correlated with ice-free periods over
the continental shelf (Regehr et al. 2007). In general, survival of
cubs-of-the-year is positively related to the weight of the mother and
their own weight (Derocher and Stirling 1996).
Female polar bears without dependent cubs typically breed in the
spring (Amstrup 2003, Stirling et al. 2016). Pregnant females enter
maternity dens between October and December (Durner et al. 2001,
Amstrup 2003), and young are usually born between early December and
early January (Van de Velde et al. 2003). Only pregnant females den for
an extended period during the winter (Rode et al. 2018). Other polar
bears may excavate temporary dens to escape harsh winter conditions;
however, shelter denning is rare for Alaskan polar bear stocks (Olson
et al. 2017). Maternal polar bear dens occur on barrier islands (linear
features of low-elevation land adjacent to the main coastline that are
separated from the mainland by bodies of water), river bank drainages,
and deltas (e.g., those associated with the Colville and Canning
Rivers), much of the North Slope coastal plain (in particular within
the 1002 Area, i.e., the land designated in section 1002 of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act and that is part of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska; Amstrup 1993), and
coastal bluffs that occur at the interface of mainland and marine
habitat (Durner et al. 2006, 2013, 2020; Blank 2013; Wilson and Durner
2020).
Typically, SBS females denning on land emerge from the den with
their cubs around mid-March (median emergence: March 11, Rode et al.
2018, USGS 2018) and commonly begin weaning when cubs are approximately
2.3-2.5 years old (Ramsay and Stirling 1986, Arnould and Ramsay 1994,
[[Page 61293]]
Amstrup 2003, Rode 2020). Cubs are born blind, with limited fat
reserves, and are able to walk only after 60-70 days (Blix and Lentfer
1978, Kenny and Bickel 2005). If a female leaves a den during early
denning (day of cub birth to 60 days after cub birth), cub mortality is
likely to occur due to a variety of factors, including susceptibility
to cold temperatures (Blix and Lentfer 1978, Hansson and Thomassen
1983, Van de Velde 2003), predation (Derocher and Wiig 1999, Amstrup et
al. 2006), and mobility limitations (Lentfer 1975). Therefore, it is
thought that successful denning, birthing, and rearing activities
require a relatively undisturbed environment. A more detailed
description of the potential consequences of disturbance to denning
females can be found below in Potential Impacts of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals: Effects to Denning Bears. Radio and satellite
telemetry studies indicate that denning can occur in multiyear pack ice
and on land (Durner et al. 2020). The proportion of dens on land has
increased along the Alaska region (34.4 percent in 1985-1995 to 55.2
percent in 2007-2013; Olson et al. 2017) likely in response to
reductions in stable old ice, which is defined as sea ice that has
survived at least one summer's melt (Bowditch 2002), increases in
unconsolidated ice, and longer melt season (Fischbach et al. 2007,
Olson et al. 2017). If sea-ice extent in the Arctic continues to
decrease and the amount of unstable ice increases, a greater proportion
of polar bears may seek to den on land (Durner et al. 2006, Fischbach
et al. 2007, Olson et al. 2017).
Climate Change
Global climate change will impact the future of polar bear
populations. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increase so
will global temperatures (Pierrehumbert 2011, IPCC 2014) with
substantial implications for the Arctic environment and its inhabitants
(Harwood et al. 2001, Bellard et al. 2012, Scheffers et al. 2016, Nunez
et al. 2019). The Arctic has warmed at twice the global rate (IPCC
2014), and long-term data sets show that substantial reductions in both
the extent and thickness of Arctic sea-ice cover have occurred over the
past 40 years (Meier et al. 2014, Frey et al. 2015). Stroeve et al.
(2012) estimated that, since 1979, the minimum area of fall Arctic sea
ice declined by over 12 percent per decade through 2010. Record low
minimum areas of fall Arctic sea-ice extent were recorded in 2002,
2005, 2007, and 2012. Further, observations of sea ice in the Beaufort
Sea have shown a trend since 2004 of sea-ice breakup earlier in the
year, re-formation of sea ice later in the year, and a greater
proportion of first-year ice in the ice cover (Galley et al. 2016). The
overall trend of decline of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue for
the foreseeable future (Stroeve et al. 2007, 73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008,
Amstrup et al. 2008, Hunter et al. 2010, Overland and Wang 2013, IPCC
2014). Decline in Arctic sea ice affects Arctic species through habitat
loss and altered trophic interactions. These factors may contribute to
population distribution changes, population mixing, and pathogen
transmission (Post et al. 2013), which further impact population health
of polar bears.
For polar bears, sea-ice habitat loss due to climate change has
been identified as the primary cause of conservation concern (e.g.,
Stirling and Derocher 2012, Atwood et al. 2016, USFWS 2016). A 42
percent loss of optimal summer polar bear habitat throughout the Arctic
is projected for the decade of 2045-2054 (Durner et al. 2009). A recent
global assessment of the vulnerability of the 19 polar bear stocks to
future climate warming ranked the SBS as one of the three most
vulnerable stocks (Hamilton and Derocher 2019)). The study, which
examined factors such as the size of the stock, continental shelf area,
ice conditions, and prey diversity, attributed the high vulnerability
of the SBS stock primarily due to deterioration of ice conditions. The
SBS polar bear stock occurs within the Polar Basin Divergent Ecoregion
(PBDE), which is characterized by extensive sea-ice formation during
the winters and sea ice melting and pulling away from the coast during
the summers (Amstrup et al. 2008). Projections show that polar bear
stocks within the PBDE may be extirpated within the next 45-75 years at
current rates of sea-ice declines (Amstrup et al. 2007, 2008). Atwood
et al. (2016) also predicted that polar bear stocks within the PBDE
will be more likely to greatly decrease in abundance and distribution
as early as the 2020-2030 decade, primarily as a result of sea-ice
habitat loss.
Sea-ice habitat loss affects the distribution and habitat use
patterns of the SBS polar bear stock. When sea ice melts during the
summer, polar bears in the PBDE may either move off the sea ice onto
land for the duration of the summer or move with the sea ice as it
recedes northward (Durner et al. 2009). The SBS stock, and to a lesser
extent the CBS stock, are increasingly utilizing marginal habitat
(i.e., land and ice over less productive waters) (Ware et al. 2017).
Polar bear use of Beaufort Sea coastal areas has increased during the
fall open-water period (June through October). Specifically, the
percentage of radio-collared adult females from the SBS stock utilizing
terrestrial habitats has tripled over 15 years, and SBS polar bears
arrive onshore earlier, stay longer, and leave to the sea ice later
(Atwood et al. 2016). This change in polar bear distribution and
habitat use has been correlated with diminished sea ice and the
increased distance of the pack ice from the coast during the open-water
period (i.e., the less sea ice and the farther from shore the leading
edge of the pack ice is, the more bears are observed onshore) (Schliebe
et al. 2006, Atwood et al. 2016).
The current trend for sea ice in the SBS region will result in
increased distances between the ice edge and land, likely resulting in
more bears coming ashore during the open-water period (Schliebe et al.
2008). More polar bears on land for a longer period of time may
increase both the frequency and the magnitude of polar bear exposure to
human activities, including an increase in human-bear interactions
(Towns et al. 2009, Schliebe et al. 2008, Atwood et al. 2016). Polar
bears spending more time in terrestrial habitats also increases their
risk of exposure to novel pathogens that are expanding north as a
result of a warmer Arctic (Atwood et al. 2016, 2017). Heightened immune
system activity and more infections (indicated by elevated number of
white blood cells) have been reported for the SBS polar bears that
summer on land when compared to those on sea ice (Atwood et al. 2017,
Whiteman et al. 2019). The elevation in immune system activity
represents additional energetic costs that could ultimately impact
stock and individual fitness (Atwood et al. 2017, Whiteman et al.
2019). Prevalence of parasites, such as the nematode Trichinella
nativa, in many Arctic species, including polar bears, pre-dates the
recent global warming. However, parasite prevalence could increase as a
result of changes in diet (e.g., increased reliance on conspecific
scavenging) and feeding habits (e.g., increased consumption of seal
muscle) associated with climate-induced reduction of hunting
opportunities for polar bears (Wilson et al. 2017, Penk et al. 2021).
The continued decline in sea ice is also projected to reduce
connectivity among polar bear stocks and potentially lead to the
impoverishment of genetic diversity that is key to maintaining viable,
resilient wildlife populations (Derocher et al. 2004, Cherry et al.
2013, Kutchera et al. 2016). The circumpolar polar bear population has
been divided into six genetic clusters: The Western Polar Basin (which
includes the SBS
[[Page 61294]]
and CBS stocks), the Eastern Polar Basin, the Western and Eastern
Canadian Archipelago, and Norwegian Bay (Malenfant et al. 2016). There
is moderate genetic structure among these clusters, suggesting polar
bears broadly remain in the same cluster when breeding. While there is
currently no evidence for strong directional gene flow among the
clusters (Malenfant et al. 2016), migrants are not uncommon and can
contribute to gene flow across clusters (Kutschera et al. 2016).
Changing sea-ice conditions will make these cross-cluster migrations
(and the resulting gene flow) more difficult in the future (Kutschera
et al. 2016).
Additionally, habitat loss from decreased sea-ice extent may impact
polar bear reproductive success by reducing or altering suitable
denning habitat and extending the polar bear fasting season (Stirling
and Derocher 2012, Rode et al. 2018, Moln[aacute]r et al. 2020). Along
the Alaskan region the proportion of terrestrial dens increased from
34.4 percent in 1985-1995 to 55.2 percent in 2007-2013 (Olson et al.
2017). Polar bears require a stable substrate for denning. As sea-ice
conditions deteriorate and become less stable, sea-ice dens can become
vulnerable to erosion from storm surges (Fischbach et al. 2007). Under
favorable autumn snowfall conditions, SBS females denning on land had
higher reproductive success than SBS females denning on sea ice.
Factors that may influence the higher reproductive success of females
with land-based dens include longer denning periods that allow cubs
more time to develop, higher snowfall conditions that strengthen den
integrity throughout the denning period (Rode et al. 2018), and
increased foraging opportunities on land (e.g., scavenging on Bowhead
whale carcasses) (Atwood et al. 2016). While SBS polar bear females
denning on land may experience increased reproductive success, at least
under favorable snowfall conditions, it is possible that competition
for suitable denning habitat on land may increase due to more female
polar bears denning on shore as a result of sea-ice decline (Fischbach
et al. 2007) and land-based dens may be more vulnerable to disturbance
from human activities (Linnell et al. 2000).
Polar bear reproductive success, throughout the Circumpolar Region,
may also be impacted by declines in sea ice through an extended fasting
season (Moln[aacute]r et al. 2020). By 2100, recruitment is predicted
to become jeopardized in nearly all polar bear stocks if greenhouse gas
emissions remain uncurbed (RCP 8.5 [Representative Concentration
Pathway 8.5] scenario) as fasting thresholds are increasingly exceeded
due to declines in sea ice across the Arctic circumpolar range
(Moln[aacute]r et al. 2020). As the fasting season increases, most of
these 19 stocks, including in the SBS stock, are expected to first
experience significant adverse effects on cub recruitment followed by
effects on adult male survival and lastly on adult female survival
(Moln[aacute]r et al. 2020). Without mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions and assuming optimistic polar bear responses (e.g., reduced
movement to conserve energy), cub recruitment in the SBS stock has
possibly been already adversely impacted since the late 1980s, while
detrimental impacts on male and female survival are forecasted to
possibly occur in the late 2030s and 2040s, respectively.
Extended fasting seasons are associated with poor body condition
(Stirling and Derocher 2012), and a female's body condition at den
entry is a critical factor that determines whether the female will
produce cubs and the cubs' chance of survival during their first year
(Rode et al. 2018). Additionally, extended fasting seasons will cause
polar bears to depend more heavily on their lipid reserves for energy,
which can release lipid-soluble contaminants, such as persistent
organic pollutants and mercury, into the bloodstream and organ tissues.
The increased levels of contaminants in the blood and tissues can
affect polar bear health and body condition, which has implications for
reproductive success and survival (Jenssen et al. 2015).
Changes in sea ice can impact polar bears by altering trophic
interactions. Differences in sea-ice dynamics, such as the timing of
ice formation and breakup, as well as changes in sea-ice type and
concentration, may impact the distribution of polar bears and/or their
prey's occurrence and reduce polar bears' access to prey. A climate-
induced reduction in overlap between female polar bears and ringed
seals was detected after a sudden sea-ice decline in Norway that
limited the ability of females to hunt on sea ice (Hamilton et al.
2017). While polar bears are opportunistic and hunt other species,
their reliance on ringed seals is prevalent across their range
(Thiemann et al. 2007, 2008; Florko et al. 2020; Rode et al. 2021).
Male and female polar bears exhibit differences in prey consumption.
Females typically consume more ringed seals compared to males, which is
likely related to more limited hunting opportunities for females (e.g.,
prey size constraints) (McKinney et al. 2017, Bourque et al. 2020).
Female body condition has been positively correlated with consumption
of ringed seals, but negatively correlated with the consumption of
bearded seals (Florko et al. 2020). Consequently, females are more
prone to decreased foraging and reproductive success than males during
years in which unfavorable sea-ice conditions limit polar bears' access
to ringed seals (Florko et al. 2020).
In the SBS stock, adult female and juvenile polar bear consumption
of ringed seals was negatively correlated with winter Arctic
oscillation, which affects sea-ice conditions (McKinney et al. 2017).
This trend was not observed for male polar bears. Instead, male polar
bears consumed more bowhead whale as a result of scavenging the
carcasses of subsistence-harvested bowhead whales during years with a
longer ice-free period over the continental shelf. It is possible that
these alterations in sea-ice conditions may limit female polar bears'
access to ringed seals, and male polar bears may rely more heavily on
alternative onshore food resources in the SBS region (McKinney et al.
2017). Changes in the availability and distribution of seals may
influence polar bear foraging efficiency. Reduction in sea ice is
expected to render polar bear foraging energetically more demanding, as
moving through fragmented sea ice and open-water swimming require more
energy than walking across consolidated sea ice (Cherry et al. 2009,
Pagano et al. 2012, Rode et al. 2014, Durner et al. 2017). Inefficient
foraging can contribute to nutritional stress and poor body condition,
which can have implications for reproductive success and survival
(Regehr et al. 2010).
The decline in Arctic sea ice is associated with the SBS polar bear
stock spending more time in terrestrial habitats (Schliebe et al.
2008). Recent changes in female denning habitat and extended fasting
seasons as a result of sea-ice decline may affect the reproductive
success of the SBS polar bear stock (Stirling and Derocher 2012, Rode
et al. 2018, Moln[aacute]r et al. 2020). Other relevant factors that
could negatively affect the SBS polar bear stock include changes in
prey availability, reduced genetic diversity through limited population
connectivity and/or hybridization with other bear species, increased
exposure to disease and parasite prevalence and/or dissemination,
impacts of human activities (oil and gas exploration/extraction,
shipping, subsistence harvest, etc.) and pollution (Post et al. 2013,
Hamilton and Derocher 2019). Based on the projections of sea-ice
decline in the Beaufort Sea region and demonstrated impacts on SBS
polar bear
[[Page 61295]]
utilization of sea-ice and terrestrial habitats, the Service
anticipates that polar bear use of the Beaufort Sea coastal area will
continue to increase during the open-water season.
Potential Impacts of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals
Human-Polar Bear Encounters
Industry activities may affect polar bears in numerous ways. SBS
polar bears are typically distributed in offshore areas associated with
multiyear pack ice from mid-November to mid-July and can be found in
large numbers and high densities on barrier islands, along the
coastline, and in the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea from mid-
July to mid-November. This distribution leads to a significantly higher
number of human-polar bear encounters on land and at offshore
structures during the open-water period (mid-July to mid-November) than
at other times of the year. Because the project is located entirely on
land, the remainder of this discussion will focus on human-polar bear
encounters on land.
A majority of Industry's on-land bear observations occur within 2
km (1.2 mi) of the coastline; however, the location for these specified
activities are primarily located outside of the coastal area.
Encounters are more likely to occur during the fall at facilities on or
near the coast. These facilities and associated infrastructure may act
as physical barriers to polar bear movements; however, polar bears have
frequently been observed crossing existing roads. Polar bear
interaction plans, training, and monitoring have the potential to
reduce human-polar bear encounters and the risks to bears and humans
when encounters occur. Polar bear interaction plans detail the policies
and procedures that the associated facilities and personnel will
implement to avoid attracting and interacting with polar bears as well
as minimizing impacts to the 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.
The noises, sights, and smells produced by the proposed project
activities could disturb and elicit variable responses from polar
bears. Noise disturbance can originate from either stationary or mobile
sources. Stationary sources include construction, maintenance, repair
and cleanup activities, and drilling operations. Mobile sources include
aircraft traffic, ice road construction, vehicle traffic, tracked
vehicles, and snowmobiles.
The potential behavioral reaction of polar bears to the specified
activities can vary by activity type. Camp odors may attract polar
bears, potentially resulting in human-bear encounters, intentional
hazing, or possible lethal take in defense of human life. Noise
generated on the ground by industrial activity may cause a behavioral
(e.g., escape response) or physiologic (e.g., increased heart rate,
hormonal response) (Harms et al. 1997, Tempel and Gutierrez 2003)
response. The available studies of polar bear behavior indicate that
the intensity of polar bear reaction to noise disturbance may be based
on previous interactions, sex, age, and maternal status (Dyck and
Baydack 2004, Anderson and Aars 2008).
Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Polar Bears
Bears near aircraft flight paths experience increased noise and
visual stimuli, both have the potential to elicit a biologically
significant behavioral response. Polar bears likely have acute hearing
with previous sensitivities demonstrated between 1.4-22.5 kHz (tests
were limited to 22.5 kHz; Nachtigall et al. 2007). This range, which is
wider than that seen in humans, supports the idea that polar bears may
experience temporary (called temporary threshold shift, or TTS) or
permanent (called permanent threshold shift, or PTS) hearing impairment
if they are exposed to high-energy sound. While species-specific TTS
and PTS thresholds have not been established for polar bears,
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) have generated modified noise exposure
thresholds for in-air 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
[Values are weighted for other marine carnivores' hearing thresholds and given in cumulative sound exposure level (SELCUM dB re (20[micro]Pa)\2\s in
air) for impulsive and non-impulsive sounds and unweighted peak sound pressure level in air (dB re 20[micro]Pa) (impulsive sounds only).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTS PTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air......................................... 157 146 161 177 161 167
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During a Federal Aviation Administration test, test aircraft
produced sound at all frequencies measured AGL (50 Hz to 10 kHz) (Healy
1974). At frequencies centered at 5 kHz, jets flying at 300 m (984 ft)
produced \1/3\ octave band noise levels of 84 to 124 dB AGL, propeller-
driven aircraft produced 75 to 90 dB AGL, and helicopters produced 60
to 70 dB AGL (Richardson et al. 1995). Thus, the frequency and level of
airborne sounds typically produced by the activities associated with
JADE's Request is unlikely to cause temporary or permanent hearing
damage. Sound frequencies produced by aircraft will likely fall within
the hearing range of polar bears (see Nachtigall et al. 2007) and will
thus be audible to animals during flyovers or when operating in
proximity to polar bears.
Although temporary or permanent hearing damage is not anticipated,
impacts to bears near aircraft flight paths have the potential to
elicit biologically significant behavioral responses from polar bears.
Observations of polar bears during fall coastal surveys, which flew at
much lower altitudes than typical flights, indicate that the reactions
of non-denning polar bears are typically varied but limited to short-
term changes in behavior ranging from no reaction to running away.
Polar bears associated with dens have been shown to increase vigilance,
initiate rapid movement, and even abandon dens when exposed to low-
flying aircraft. Aircraft activities can impact polar bears over all
seasons; however, during the summer and fall
[[Page 61296]]
seasons, aircraft have the potential to disturb both individuals and
congregations of polar bears. These onshore polar bears spend the
majority of their time resting and limiting their movements on land.
Exposure to auditory and visual stimuli associated with aircraft flight
paths is likely to result in changes in behavior, such as going from
resting to walking or running, and, therefore, has the potential to be
energetically costly. Mitigation measures, such as minimum flight
elevations over polar bears and avoidance of frequently used habitat
areas as well as flight restrictions around known polar bear
aggregations, will be required when safe, to achieve least practicable
adverse impact of the likelihood that polar bears are disturbed by
aircraft.
Effects to Denning Polar Bears
The Service monitors known polar bear dens around the oilfield
discovered either opportunistically or during planned surveys for
tracking marked polar bears and detecting polar bear dens. However,
these sites are only a small percentage of the total active polar bear
dens for the SBS stock in any given year. To identify any active polar
bear dens in the area, JADE has included in the Request plans to
conduct AIR surveys in addition to using handheld and vehicle-mounted
FLIR. If a polar bear den is located, activities are required to avoid
known polar bear dens by 1.6 km (1 mi). When a previously unknown den
is discovered in proximity to ongoing activities, JADE will implement
mitigation measures such as the 1.6-km (1-mi) activity exclusion zone
around the den and 24-hour monitoring of the 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 located in the
2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021).
Effects of Industry Activities on Polar Bear Prey
While some oil and gas activity on the North Slope of Alaska may
impact polar bears indirectly by altering polar bears' access to their
prey, primarily ringed seals and bearded seals, impacts from the
specified activities will not occur offshore. Therefore, the specified
activities are not anticipated to have effects on polar bear prey or
their availability to access prey.
Estimated Take
Definitions of Incidental Take Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
Below we provide definitions of potential types of take of polar
bears. The Service does not anticipate and is not authorizing lethal
take or Level A harassment as a part of this proposed incidental
harassment authorization, nor was it included in the Request; 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
or running over an unknown den causing its collapse), human actions can
result in polar bear mortality. 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. Numerous actions can
cause take by Level A harassment, such as creating an annoyance that
separates mothers from dependent cubs (Amstrup 2003), results in polar
bear mothers leaving the den early (Amstrup and Gardner 1994, Rode et
al. 2018), or interrupts the nursing or resting of cubs.
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 behaviors or activities, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, feeding, or sheltering. Human-caused
changes in behavior that disrupt biologically significant behaviors or
activities for the affected animal indicate take by Level B harassment
under the MMPA. Such reactions include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Fleeing (running or swimming away from a human or a human
activity);
Displaying a stress-related behavior such as jaw or lip-
popping, front leg stomping, vocalizations, circling, intense staring,
or salivating;
Abandoning or avoiding preferred movement corridors such
as ice floes, leads, polynyas, a segment of coastline, or barrier
islands;
Using a longer or more difficult route of travel instead
of the intended path;
Interrupting breeding, sheltering, or feeding;
Moving away at a fast pace (adult) and cubs struggling to
keep up;
Ceasing to nurse or rest (cubs);
Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a prolonged period
(adults);
Loss of hunting opportunity due to disturbance of prey; or
Any interruption in normal denning behavior that does not
cause injury, den abandonment, or early departure of the family group
from the den site.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other
behavioral responses may also be indicative of Level B harassment.
Relatively minor changes in behavior such as increased vigilance or a
short-term change in direction of travel are not likely to disrupt
biologically important behavioral patterns, and the Service does not
view such minor changes in behavior as indicative of Level B
harassment. It is also important to note that reactions of greater
duration, frequency, or severity than contemplated in the list above
could reflect take by Level A harassment.
Surface Interactions
Encounter Rate
Human-caused disturbances cannot cause take if no polar bears are
present in the area of exposure. To quantify the anticipated take
associated with a given activity, it is necessary to evaluate the
number of polar bears anticipated to be present within the area of
exposure. The best available scientific evidence for estimating polar
bear prevalence near areas of industrial activities on the North Slope
includes data concerning human-polar bear encounters. The most
comprehensive dataset of human-polar bear encounters along the coast of
Alaska consists of records of Industry encounters during activities on
the North Slope submitted to the Service
[[Page 61297]]
under existing and previous incidental take regulations. This database
is referred to as the ``LOA database'' because it aggregates data
reported by the Industry to the Service pursuant to the terms and
conditions of Letters of Authorization (LOA) issued under current and
previous incidental take regulations (50 CFR part 18, subpart J). We
have used records in the LOA database from the period 2014-2018, in
conjunction with polar bear density projections for the entire
coastline, to generate quantitative encounter rates in the project
area. This 5-year period was used to provide metrics that reflected the
most recent patterns of polar bear habitat use within the Beaufort Sea
region. Each encounter record includes the date and time of the
encounter, a general description of the encounter, number of bears
encountered, latitude and longitude, weather variables, and the
Service's take determination. If latitude and longitude were not
supplied in the initial report, we georeferenced the encounter using
the location description and a map of North Slope infrastructure.
Spatially Partitioning the North Slope Into ``coastal'' and ``inland''
Zones
The vast majority of SBS polar bear encounters along the Alaskan
coast occur along the shore or immediately offshore (Atwood et al.
2015, Wilson et al. 2017). Thus, encounter rates for inland operations
should be significantly lower than those for offshore or coastal
operations. To partition the North Slope into ``coastal'' and
``inland'' zones, we calculated the distance to shore for all encounter
records in the period 2014-2018 in the Service's LOA database using a
shapefile of the coastline and the dist2Line function found in the R
geosphere package (Geosphere Version 1.5-10, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/geosphere/index.html, accessed May 26, 2019).
Linked sightings of the same bear(s) were removed from the analysis,
and individual records were created for each bear encountered. However,
because we were able to identify and remove only repeated sightings
that were designated as linked within the database, it is likely that
some repeated encounters of the same bear remained in our analysis. Of
the 1,713 bears encountered from 2014 through 2018, 1,140 (66.5
percent) of the bears were offshore. While these bears were encountered
offshore, the encounters were reported by onshore or island operations
(i.e., docks, drilling and production islands, or causeways). We
examined the distribution of bears that were onshore and up to 10 km
(6.2 mi) inland to determine the distance at which encounters sharply
decreased (figure 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.039
The histogram illustrates a steep decline in human-polar bear
encounters at 2 km (1.2 mi) from shore. Using this data, we divided the
North Slope into the ``coastal zone,'' which includes offshore
operations and up to 2 km (1.2 mi) inland, and the ``inland zone,''
which includes operations more than 2 km (1.2 mi) inland.
Dividing the Year Into Seasons
As we described in Polar Bear Biology above, the majority of polar
bears spend the winter months on the sea ice, leading to few polar bear
encounters on the shore during this season. Many of the specified
activities are also seasonal, and only occur either in the winter or
summer months. To develop an accurate estimate of the number of polar
bear encounters that may result from the
[[Page 61298]]
specified activities, we divided the year into seasons of high bear
activity and low bear activity using the Service's LOA database. Below
is a histogram of all bear encounters from 2014 through 2018 by day of
the year (Julian date). Two clear seasons of polar bear encounters can
be seen: An ``open-water season'' that begins in mid-July and ends in
mid-November, and an ``ice season'' that begins in mid-November and
ends in mid-July. The 200th and 315th days of the year were used to
delineate these seasons when calculating encounter rates (figure 3).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.040
North Slope Encounter Rates
Encounter rates in bears/season/km\2\ were calculated using a
subset of the Industry encounter records maintained in the Service's
LOA database. The following formula was used to calculate encounter
rate (Equation 1):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.041
The subset consisted of encounters in areas that were constantly
occupied year-round to prevent artificially inflating the denominator
of the equation and negatively biasing the encounter rate. To identify
constantly occupied North Slope locations, we gathered data from
several sources. We used past LOA applications to find descriptions of
projects that occurred anywhere within 2014-2018 and the final LOA
reports to determine the projects that proceeded as planned and those
that were never completed. Finally, we relied upon the institutional
knowledge of our staff, who have worked with operators and inspected
facilities on the North Slope. To determine the area around industrial
facilities in which a polar bear can be seen and reported, we queried
the Service LOA database for records that included the distance to an
encountered polar bear. It is important to note that these values may
represent the closest distance a bear came to the observer or the
distance at initial contact. Therefore, in some cases, the bear may
have been initially encountered farther than the distance recorded. The
histogram of
[[Page 61299]]
these values shows a drop in the distance at which a polar bear is
encountered at roughly 1.6 km (1 mi) (figure 4).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.042
Using this information, we buffered the 24-hour occupancy locations
listed above by 1.6 km (1 mi) and calculated an overall search area for
both the coastal and inland zones. The coastal and inland occupancy
buffer shapefiles were then used to select encounter records that were
associated with 24-hour occupancy locations, resulting in the number of
bears encountered per zone. These numbers were then separated into
open-water and ice seasons (table 2).
Table 2--Summary of Encounters of Polar Bears on the North Slope of
Alaska in the Period 2014-2018 Within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the 24-Hour
Occupancy Locations and Subsequent Encounter Rates for Coastal (A) and
Inland (B) Zones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice season Open-water season
Year encounters encounters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Coastal Zone (Area = 133
km\2\):
2014.................... 2................... 193.
2015.................... 8................... 49.
2016.................... 4................... 227.
2017.................... 7................... 313.
2018.................... 13.................. 205.
Average................. 6.8................. 197.4
Seasonal Encounter 0.05 bears/km\2\.... 1.48 bears/km\2\.
Rate.
(B) Inland Zone (Area = 267
km\2\):
2014.................... 3................... 3.
2015.................... 0................... 0.
2016.................... 0................... 2.
2017.................... 3................... 0.
2018.................... 0................... 2.
Average................. 1.2................. 1.4.
Seasonal Encounter 0.004 bears/km\2\... 0.005 bears/km\2\.
Rate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harassment Rate
The Level B harassment rate or the probability that an encountered
bear will experience Level B harassment was calculated using the 2014-
2018 dataset from the LOA database. A binary logistic regression of
harassment regressed upon distance to shore was not significant
(p=0.65), supporting the use of a single harassment rate for both the
coastal and inland zones. However, a binary logistic regression of
[[Page 61300]]
harassment regressed upon day of the year was significant. This
significance held when encounters were binned into either ice or open-
water seasons (p <0.0015).
We subsequently estimated the harassment rate for each season with
a Bayesian probit regression with season as a fixed effect (Hooten and
Hefley 2019). Model parameters were estimated using 10,000 iterations
of a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm composed of Gibbs updates
implemented in R (R core team 2021, Hooten and Hefley 2019). We used
Normal (0,1) priors, which are uninformative on the prior predictive
scale (Hobbs and Hooten 2015), to generate the distribution of open-
water and ice-season marginal posterior predictive probabilities of
harassment. The upper 99 percent quantile of each probability
distribution can be interpreted as the upper limit of the potential
harassment rate supported by our dataset (i.e., there is a 99 percent
chance that given the data the harassment rate is lower than this
value). We chose to use 99 percent quantiles of the probability
distributions to account for any negative bias that has been introduced
into the dataset through unobserved harassment or variability in the
interpretation of polar bear behavioral reactions by multiple
observers. The final harassment rates were 0.19 during the open-water
season and 0.37 during the ice season (figure 5).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.044
Impact Area
As noted above, we have calculated encounter rates depending on the
distance from shore and season and take rates depending on season. To
properly assess the area of potential impact from the project
activities, we must calculate the area affected by project activities
to such a degree that harassment is possible. This is sometimes
referred to as a zone or area of influence. Behavioral response rates
of polar bears to disturbances are highly variable, and data to support
the relationship between distance to bears and disturbance is limited.
Dyck and Baydack (2004) found sex-based differences in the frequencies
of vigilant bouts of 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 1.6 km (1.0 mi) will likely encompass the majority
of polar bear harassment events.
Correction Factor
While the locations that were used to calculate encounter rates are
thought to have constant human occupancy, it is possible that bears may
be in the vicinity of industrial infrastructure and not be noticed by
humans. These unnoticed bears may also experience Level B harassment.
To determine whether our calculated encounter rate should be corrected
for unnoticed bears, we compared our encounter rates to Wilson et al.'s
(2017) weekly average polar bear estimates along the northern coast of
Alaska and the South Beaufort Sea.
Wilson et al.'s weekly average estimate of polar bears across the
coast was informed by Service-conducted aerial surveys in the period
2000-2014
[[Page 61301]]
and supplemented by daily counts of polar bears in three high-density
barrier islands (Cross, Barter, and Cooper Islands). Using a Bayesian
hierarchical model, the authors estimated 140 polar bears would be
along the coastline each week between the months of August and October.
These estimates were further partitioned into 10 equally sized grids
along the coast. Grids 4-7 overlap the SBS area, including the PBU and
PTU in which the specified activities are proposed to occur. Grid 6 was
estimated to account for 25 percent of the weekly bear estimate (35
bears); however, 25 percent of the bears in grid 6 were located on
Cross Island. Grids 5 and 7 were estimated to contain 7 bears each,
weekly. Using raw aerial survey data, we calculated the number of bears
per km of surveyed mainland and number of bears per km of surveyed
barrier islands for each Service aerial survey from 2010 through 2014
to determine the proportion of bears on barrier islands versus the
mainland. On average, 1.7 percent, 7.2 percent, and 14 percent of bears
were sighted on the mainland in grids 5, 6, and 7, respectively.
While linked encounter records in the LOA database were removed in
earlier formatting, it is possible that a single bear may be the focus
of multiple encounter records, particularly if the bear moves between
facilities operated by different entities. To minimize repeated
sightings, we designated a single industrial infrastructure location in
each grid: Oliktok Point in grid 5, West Beach in grid 6, and Point
Thomson's central pad in grid 7. These locations were determined in
earlier analyses to have constant 24-hour occupancy; thus, if a polar
bear were within the viewing area of these facilities, it must be
reported as a condition of each entity's LOA.
Polygons of each facility were buffered by 1.6 km (1 mi) to account
for the industrial viewing area (see above) and then clipped by a 400-m
(0.25-mi) buffer around the shoreline to account for the area in which
observers were able to reliably detect polar bears in the Service's
aerial surveys (i.e., the specific area to which the Wilson et al.'s
model predictions applied). Industrial encounters within this area were
used to generate the average weekly number of polar bears from August
through October. Finally, we divided these numbers by area to generate
average weekly bears/km\2\ and multiplied this number by the total
coastal Service aerial survey area. The results are summarized in table
3.
Table 3--Comparison of Polar Bear Encounters to Number of Polar Bears Projected by Wilson et al. 2017 at
Designated Point Locations on the Coast of the North Slope of Alaska
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grid 5 Grid 6 Grid 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total coastline viewing area (km\2\)............................ 34 45 33.4
Industry viewing area (km\2\)................................... 0.31 0.49 1.0
Proportion of coastline area viewed by point location........... 0.009 0.011 0.030
Average number of bears encountered August-October at point 3.2 4.6 28.8
location.......................................................
Number of weeks in analysis..................................... 13 13 13
Average weekly number of bears reported at point location....... 0.246 0.354 2.215
Average weekly number of bears projected in grid................ 7 26 7
Average weekly number of bears projected for point location..... 0.064 0.283 0.210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These comparisons show a greater number of industrial sightings
than would be estimated by the Wilson et al. 2017 model. There are
several potential explanations for higher industrial encounters than
projected by model results. Polar bears may be attracted to industrial
infrastructure, the encounters documented may be multiple sightings of
the same bear, or specifically for the Point Thomson location, higher
numbers of polar bears may be travelling past the pad to the Kaktovik
whale carcass piles. However, because the number of polar bears
estimated within the point locations is lower than the average number
of industrial sightings, these findings cannot be used to create a
correction factor for industrial encounter rate. To date, the data
needed to create such a correction factor (i.e., spatially explicit
polar bear densities across the North Slope) have not been generated.
Estimated Harassment
We estimated Level B harassment using the spatio-temporally
specific encounter rates and temporally specific take rates derived
above in conjunction with JADE supplied spatially and temporally
specific data. Table 4 provides the definition for each variable used
in the take formulas.
Table 4--Definitions of Variables Used in Take Estimates of Polar Bears
on the Coast of the North Slope of Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B................................. bears encountered in an area of
interest for the entire season.
a................................. coastal exposure area.
a................................. inland exposure area.
r................................. occupancy rate.
e................................. coastal ice season bear-encounter
rate in bears/season.
e................................. inland ice season bear-encounter
rate in bears/season.
t................................. ice season harassment rate.
B................................. number of estimated Level B
harassment events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The variables defined above were used in a series of formulas to
ultimately estimate the total harassment from surface-level
interactions. Encounter rates were originally calculated as bears
encountered per square kilometer per season (see North Slope Encounter
Rates above). As a part of their Request, JADE provided the Service
with digital geospatial files and crew shift information that was used
to determine the maximum expected human occupancy (i.e., rate of
occupancy (ro)) for each phase of the project (e.g.,
construction of ice roads, construction of ice pads, ice road
maintenance, drilling, etc.). Using the buffer tool in ArcGIS, we
created a spatial file of a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer around all proposed
structures. The areas of impact were then clipped by coastal and inland
zone shapefiles to determine the coastal areas of impact
(ac) and inland areas of impact (ai) for each
activity category. We then used spatial files of the coastal and inland
zones to determine the area in coastal versus inland zones for each
occupancy percentage.
Impact areas were multiplied by the appropriate encounter rate to
obtain the number of bears expected to be encountered in an area of
interest per season (Bes). The equation below (Equation 2)
provides an example of the calculation of bears encountered in the
[[Page 61302]]
ice season for an area of interest in the coastal zone.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.045
To generate the number of estimated Level B harassments for each
area of interest, we multiplied the number of bears in the area of
interest per season by the proportion of the season the area is
occupied, the rate of occupancy, and the harassment rate (Equation 3).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.046
Aircraft Activities
Aircraft activities are proposed to take place only during cleanup
activities lasting early- to mid-July. The proposed aircraft activity
would be spatially limited, occur prior to the start of the open-water
season (July 19), and be subject to mitigation measures proposed by
JADE. Analyses of previous projects of a similar nature and location,
but larger extents, estimated polar bear takes by harassment to be less
than 0.0003 polar bears. Given this information, the Service has
determined that impacts would be negligible and further analysis is not
warranted.
Methods for Modeling the Effects of Den Disturbance
Case Studies Analysis
To assess the likelihood and degree of exposure and predict
probable responses of denning polar bears to activities proposed in
JADE's Request, we characterized, evaluated, and prioritized a series
of rules and definitions towards a predictive model based on knowledge
of published and unpublished information on polar bear denning ecology,
behavior, and cub survival. Contributing information came from
literature searches in several major research databases and data
compiled from polar bear observations submitted by the Industry. We
considered all available scientific and observational data we could
find on polar bear denning behavior and effects of disturbance.
From these sources, we identified 57 case studies representing
instances where polar bears at a maternal den may have been exposed to
human activities. For each den, we considered the four denning periods
separately, and for each period, determined whether adequate
information existed to document whether (1) the human activity met our
definition of an exposure and (2) the response of the polar bear(s)
could be classified according to our rules and definitions. From these
57 dens, 80 denning period-specific events met these criteria. For each
event, we classified the type and frequency (i.e., discrete or
repeated) of the exposure, the response of the polar bear(s), and the
level of take associated with that response. From this information, we
calculated the probability that a discrete or repeated exposure would
result in each possible level of take during each denning period, which
informed the probabilities for outcomes in the simulation model (table
5).
Table 5--Probability for Each Possible Level of Take Based on the 57 Case Studies From a Discrete or Repeated Exposure During Each Denning Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-serious Serious Level
Exposure type Period None Level B Level A A Lethal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrete.................................. Den Establishment........... 0.400 0.600 NA NA NA
Early Denning............... 1.000 0.000 NA NA 0.000
Late Denning................ 0.091 0.000 NA 0.909 0.000
Post-emergence.............. 0.000 0.000 0.750 NA 0.250
Repeated.................................. Den Establishment........... 1.000 0.000 NA NA NA
Early Denning............... 0.800 0.000 NA NA 0.200
Late Denning................ 0.708 0.000 NA 0.292 0.000
Post-emergence.............. 0.000 0.267 0.733 NA 0.000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61303]]
Case Study Analysis Definitions
Below, we provide definitions for terms used in this analysis, a
general overview of denning chronology and periods (details are
provided in the Potential Impacts of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals: Effects to Denning Polar Bears), and the rules established for
using the case studies to inform the model.
Exposure and Response Definitions
Exposure: Any human activity within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a polar bear
den site. In the case of aircraft, an overflight within 457 m (0.3 mi)
above ground level.
Discrete exposure: An exposure that occurs only once and of short
duration (<30 minutes). It can also be a short-duration exposure that
happens repeatedly but that is separated by sufficient time that
exposures can be treated as independent (e.g., aerial pipeline surveys
that occur weekly).
Repeated exposure: An exposure that occurs more than once within a
time period where exposures cannot be considered independent or an
exposure that occurs due to continuous activity during a period of time
(e.g., traffic along a road, or daily visits to a well pad).
Response probability: The probability that an exposure resulted in
a response by denning polar bears.
We categorized each exposure into categories based on polar bear
response:
No response: No observed or presumed behavioral or
physiological response to an exposure.
Likely physiological response: An alteration in the normal
physiological function of a polar bear (e.g., elevated heart rate or
stress hormone levels) that is typically unobservable but is likely to
occur in response to an exposure.
Behavioral response: A change in behavior in response to
an exposure. Behavioral responses can range from biologically
insignificant (e.g., a resting bear raising its head in response to a
vehicle driving along a road) to substantial (e.g., cub abandonment)
and concomitant levels of take vary accordingly.
Timing Definitions
Entrance date: The date a female first enters a maternal den after
excavation is complete.
Emergence date: The date a maternal den is first opened and a bear
is exposed directly to external conditions. Although a bear may exit
the den completely at emergence, we considered even partial-body exits
(e.g., only a bear's head protruding above the surface of the snow) to
represent emergence in order to maintain consistency with dates derived
from temperature sensors on collared bears (e.g., Rode et al. 2018).
For dens located near regularly occurring human activity, we considered
the first day a bear was observed near a den to be the emergence date
unless other data were available to inform emergence dates (e.g., GPS
collar data).
Departure date: The date when bears leave the den site to return to
the sea ice. If a bear leaves the den site after a disturbance but
later returns, we considered the initial movement to be the departure
date.
Definition of Various Denning Periods
Den establishment period: Period of time between the start of
maternal den excavation and the birth of cubs. Unless evidence
indicates otherwise, all dens that are excavated by adult females in
the fall or winter are presumed to be maternal dens. In the absence of
other information, this period is defined as denning activity prior to
December 1 (i.e., estimated earliest date cubs are likely present in
dens (Derocher et al. 1992, Van de Velde et al. 2003)).
Early denning period: Period of time from the birth of cubs until
they reach 60 days of age and are capable of surviving outside the den.
In the absence of other information, this period is defined as any
denning activity occurring between December 1 and February 13 (i.e., 60
days after December 15 the estimated average date of cub birth; Messier
et al. 1994, Van de Velde et al. 2003).
Late denning period: Period of time between when cubs reach 60 days
of age and den emergence. In the absence of other information, this
period is defined as any denning activity occurring between February14
and den emergence.
Post-emergence period: Period of time between den emergence and den
site departure. We considered a ``normal'' duration at the den site
between emergence and departure to be greater than or equal to 8 days
and classified departures that occurred post emergence ``early'' if
they occurred less than 8 days after emergence.
Descriptions of Potential Outcomes
Cub abandonment: Occurs when a female leaves all or part of her
litter, either in the den or on the surface, at any stage of the
denning process. We classified events where a female left her cubs but
later returned (or was returned by humans) as cub abandonment.
Early emergence: Den emergence that occurs as the result of an
exposure (see `Rules' below).
Early departure: Departure from the den site post-emergence that
occurs as the result of an exposure (see `Rules' below).
Predictive Model Rules for Determining Den Outcomes and Assigning Take
We considered any exposure in a 24-hour period that did
not result in a Level A harassment or lethal take to potentially be a
Level B harassment if a behavioral response was observed. However,
multiple exposures do not result in multiple Level B harassments unless
the exposures occurred in two different denning periods.
If comprehensive dates of specific exposures are not
available and daily exposures were possible (e.g., the den was located
within 1.6 km [1 mi] of an ice road), we assumed exposures occurred
daily.
In the event of an exposure that resulted in a disturbance
to denning bears, take was assigned for each bear (i.e., female and
each cub) associated with that den. Whereas assigned take for cubs
could range from Level B harassment to lethal take, for adult females
only Level B harassment was possible.
In the absence of additional information, we assumed dens
did not contain cubs prior to December 1, but did contain cubs on or
after December 1.
If an exposure occurred and the adult female subsequently
abandoned her cubs, we assigned a lethal take for each cub.
If an exposure occurred during the early denning period
and bears emerged from the den before cubs reached 60 days of age, we
assigned a lethal take for each cub. In the absence of information
about cub age, a den emergence that occurred between December 1 and
February 13 was considered to be an early emergence and resulted in a
lethal take of each cub.
If an exposure occurred during the late denning period
(i.e., after cubs reached 60 days of age) and bears emerged from the
den before their intended (i.e., undisturbed) emergence date, we
assigned a serious injury Level A harassment take for each cub. In the
absence of information about cub age and intended emergence date (which
was known only for simulated dens), den emergences that occurred
between (and including) February 14 and March 14 were considered to be
early emergences and resulted in a non-serious-injury Level A
harassment take of each cub. If a den emergence
[[Page 61304]]
occurred after March 14 but was clearly linked to an exposure (e.g.,
bear observed emerging from the den when activity initiated near the
den), we considered the emergence to be early and resulted in a
serious-injury Level A harassment take of each cub.
For dens where emergence was not classified as early, if
an exposure occurred during the post-emergence period and bears
departed the den site prior to their intended (i.e., undisturbed)
departure date, we assigned a non-serious-injury Level A harassment
take for each cub. In the absence of information about the intended
departure date (which was known only for simulated dens), den site
departures that occurred less than 8 days after the emergence date were
considered to be early departures and resulted in a non-serious-injury
Level A harassment take of each cub.
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;
Blank 2013) contained within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
(NPRA) in the west to the Canadian border in the east. While JADE's
Request does not include activity inside the Arctic Refuge, we still
simulated dens in that area to ensure that any activities directly
adjacent to the refuge that might impact denning bears inside the
refuge would be captured. 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 Arctic Refuge.
The mean estimated number of dens in each region during a given winter
were as follows: 12 dens (95 percent CI: 3-26) in the NPRA, 26 dens (95
percent CI: 11-48) in the CC region, and 14 dens (95 percent CI: 5-30)
in the Arctic Refuge (Atwood et al. 2020). 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 propagated 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 (122/5.82,
12/5.82), CC (262/9.52, 26/9.52), and Arctic Refuge (142/6.32, 14/
6.32).
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 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 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 GPS-collared
bears or through systematic surveys for denning bears (Durner et al.
2020). This 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 accomplish this, we first took a random sample from a binomial
distribution to determine the expected number of dens from the den
catalog (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 the 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 the 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 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 only considered the potential impacts of activity to
those dens simulated to occur in the region with denning habitat
identified (Durner et al. 2013).
To account for the potential influence of industrial activities and
infrastructure 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 (Durner et al. 2006). We then determined the minimum distance
to permanent infrastructure that was present when the den was
identified. This led to an estimate of a mean minimum distance of dens
to infrastructure being 21.59 km (SD=16.82). From these values, we then
parameterized a gamma distribution: Gamma (21.592/16.822, 21.59/
16.822). We then obtained 100,000 samples from this distribution and
created a discretized distribution of distances between dens and
infrastructure. We created 2.5-km intervals between 0 and 45 km, and
one bin for areas greater than 45 km from infrastructure and determined
the number of samples that occurred within each distance bin. We then
divided the number of samples in each bin by the total number of
samples to determine the probability of a simulated den occurring in a
given distance bin. The choice of 2.5 km for distance bins was based on
a need to ensure that kernel density grid cells occurred in each
distance bin.
To inform where dens are most likely to occur on the landscape, we
developed a kernel density map by using known den locations in northern
Alaska identified either by GPS-collared bears or through systematic
surveys for denning bears (Durner et al. 2020). To approximate the
distribution of dens, we used an adaptive kernel density estimator
(Terrell and Scott 1992) applied to
nn
observed den locations, which took the form
[[Page 61305]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.079
were chosen based on visual assessment so that the density estimate
approximated the observed density of dens and our understanding of
likely den locations in areas with low sampling effort.
The kernel density map we used for this analysis differs slightly
from the version used in previous analyses, specifically our
differentiation of barrier islands from mainland habitat. We used this
modified version because previous analyses did not require us to
consider denning habitat in the CC region, which has a significant
amount of denning that occurs on barrier islands compared to the other
two regions. If barrier islands were not differentiated for the kernel
density estimate, density from the barrier island dens would spill over
onto the mainland, which was deemed to be biologically unrealistic
given the clear differences in den density between the barrier islands
and the mainland in the region. We restricted the distance to
infrastructure component to only the CC region because it is the region
that contains the vast majority of oil and gas infrastructure and has
had some form of permanent industrial infrastructure present for more
than 50 years.
To simulate dens on the landscape, we first sampled in which kernel
grid cell a den would occur based on the underlying relative
probability (figure 6) within a given region using a multinomial
distribution. Once a cell was selected, the simulated den was randomly
placed on the denning habitat (Durner et al. 2006, 2013; Blank 2013)
located within that grid cell. For dens being simulated on mainland in
the CC region, an additional step was required. We first assigned a
simulated den a distance bin using a multinomial distribution of
probabilities of being located in a given distance bin based on the
discretized distribution of distances described above. Based on the
distance to infrastructure bin assigned to a simulated den, we subset
the kernel density grid cells that occurred in the same distance bin
and then selected a grid cell from that subset based on their
underlying probabilities using a multinomial distribution. Then,
similar to other locations, a den was randomly placed on denning
habitat within that grid cell.
[[Page 61306]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO21.047
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 bears in the SBS
subpopulation that denned on land included in Rode et al. (2018) and
published in USGS (2018; n=52, mean=11 November, SD=18 days). These
data were restricted to those dens with both an entrance and emergence
date identified and where a bear was in the den for greater than or
equal to 60 days to reduce the chances of including non-maternal bears
using shelter dens. Sixty days represents the minimum age of cubs
before they have a chance of survival outside of the den. Thus, periods
less than 60 days in the den have a higher chance of being shelter
dens.
We truncated this distribution to ensure that all simulated dates
occurred within the range of observed values (i.e., September 12 to
December 22) identified in USGS (2018) to ensure that entrance dates
were not simulated during biologically unreasonable periods given that
the normal distribution allows some probability (albeit small) of dates
being substantially outside a biologically reasonable range. We
selected a date of birth for each litter from a normal distribution
with the mean set to ordinal date 348 (i.e., December 15) and standard
deviation of 10, which allowed the 95 percent CI to approximate the
range of birth dates (i.e., December 1 to January 15) identified in the
peer-reviewed literature (Messier et al. 1994, Van de Velde et al.
2003). We ensured that simulated birth dates occurred after simulated
den entrance dates. 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 bears in the SBS stock that denned on land using the mleALD
function from package `ald' (Galarzar and Lachos 2018) in program R (R
Core Development Team 2021). We constrained simulated emergence dates
to occur within the range of observed emergence dates (January 9 to
April 9, again to constrain dates to be biologically realistic) and to
not occur until after cubs were 60 days old.
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, 2013) and Robinson (2014),
which monitored dens 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
8.02/5.52 and a rate parameter equal to 8.0/5.52; we selected a post-
emergence, pre-departure time for each den from this distribution. We
restricted time at the den post emergence to occur within the range of
times observed in Smith et al. (2007, 2013) and Robinson (2014) (i.e.,
2-23 days, again to ensure biologically realistic times spent at the
den site were simulated). 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, 2013) and Robinson (2014).
Because there is some probability that a female naturally emerges
with zero cubs, we also wanted to ensure this scenario was captured. It
is difficult to parameterize the probability of litter size equal to
zero because it is rarely observed. We, therefore, assumed that dens in
the USGS (2018) dataset that had denning durations less than the
shortest den duration where a female was later observed with cubs
(i.e., 79 days) had a litter size of zero. There were only three bears
in the USGS (2018) data that met this criteria, leading to an assumed
probability of a litter size of zero 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.
Infrastructure and Human Activities
The model developed by Wilson and Durner (2020) provides a template
for estimating the level of potential impact to denning polar bears of
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 bears and in the timing and spatial
patterns of specified activities when precise information on those
activities is unavailable. Below we describe the
[[Page 61307]]
different sources of potential disturbance we considered within the
model. We considered infrastructure and human activities only within
the area of proposed activity in the IHA Request. However, given that
activity on the border of this region could still affect dens falling
outside of the area defined in the IHA Request, we also considered the
impacts to denning bears within a 1-mile buffer outside of the proposed
activity area.
Roads and Pads
We obtained shapefiles of existing road and pad infrastructure
associated with industrial activities from JADE. Each attribute in the
shapefiles included a monthly occupancy rate that ranged from zero to
one. For this analysis, we assumed that any road or pad with occupancy
greater than zero for a given month had the potential for human
activity during the entire month unless otherwise noted.
Ice Roads and Tundra Travel
We obtained shapefiles of proposed ice roads, tundra travel routes,
and ice pads from JADE. We also received information on the proposed
start and end dates for ice roads and tundra routes each winter from
JADE with activity anticipated to occur at least daily along each.
Aerial Infrared Surveys
Based on JADE's Request, we assumed that all permanent
infrastructure (i.e., roads and pads) and ice roads would receive two
AIR surveys of polar bear den habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of those
features in the winter of 2021. The first survey would occur between
November 25 and December 15, and the second survey would occur between
December 5 and December 31. During each iteration of the model, the AIR
surveys were randomly assigned a probability of detecting dens. Two
studies (Smith et al. 2020, Woodruff et al. in prep) have been
conducted since Wilson and Durner (2020) was published that require an
updated approach. The study by Woodruff et al. (in prep) 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 snow depth, we needed to correct it to also
include those dens with greater than 100 cm 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 standard
deviation 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 i.e., Beta (0.412-0.413-
0.41x0.153920.15392,0.41-
2x0.412+0.413-
0.15392+0.41x0.153920.15392)Beta0.412-
0.413-0.41x0.153920.15392,0.41-2x0.412+0.413-
0.15392+0.41x0.153920.15392) from which we drew a detection probability
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 each of the simulated activities and infrastructure. We
assumed that any den within 1.6 km (1 mi) of infrastructure or human
activities was exposed and had the potential to be disturbed as
numerous studies have suggested a 1.6-km buffer is sufficient to reduce
disturbance to denning polar bears (MacGillivray et al. 2003, Larson et
al. 2020, Owen et al. 2021). If, however, a den was detected by an AIR
survey prior to activity occurring within 1.6 km of it, we assumed a
1.6-km buffer would be established to restrict activity adjacent to the
den and there would be no potential for future disturbance. If a den
was detected by an AIR survey after activity occurred within 1.6 km of
it, as long as the activity did not result in a Level A harassment or
lethal take, we assumed a 1.6-km buffer would be applied to prevent
disturbance during future denning periods. For dens exposed to human
activity (i.e., not detected by an AIR survey), we then identified the
stage in the denning cycle when the exposure occurred based on the date
range of the activities the den was exposed to. We then determined
whether the exposure elicited a response by the denning bear based on
probabilities derived from the reviewed case studies (table 5).
Level B harassment was applicable to both adults and cubs, if
present, whereas Level A harassment (i.e., serious injury and non-
serious injury) and lethal take were applicable only to cubs because
the specified activities had a discountable risk of running over dens
and thus killing a female or impacting her future reproductive
potential. The majority of the specified activities occur on
established, permanent infrastructure or in areas that would not be
suitable for denning and, therefore, pose no risk of being run over
(i.e., an existing road or pad). For those activities off permanent
infrastructure (i.e., ice roads and tundra travel routes), crews will
constantly be on the lookout for signs of denning, use vehicle-based
forward-looking infrared cameras to scan for dens, and will largely
avoid crossing topographic features suitable for denning given
operational constraints. Thus, the risk of running over a den was
deemed to have a probability so low that it was discountable.
Based on JADE's description of their specified activities, we only
considered AIR surveys as discrete exposures given that surveys occur
quickly (i.e., the time for an airplane to fly over) and infrequently.
The case studies used to inform the post-emergence period include one
where an individual fell into a den and caused the female to abandon
her cubs. Therefore, we excluded this case study from the calculation
of disturbance probabilities applied to our analysis, which led to a 0
percent probability of lethal take and a 100 percent probability of
non-serious-injury Level A harassment.
If a Level A harassment or lethal take was simulated to occur, a
den was not allowed to be disturbed again during the subsequent denning
periods because the outcome of that denning event was already
determined. As noted above, Level A harassments and lethal takes
applied only to cubs because specified activities would not result in
those levels of take for adult females. Adult females, however, could
still receive Level B takes during the den establishment period or any
time cubs received Level B harassment, Level A harassment (i.e.,
serious injury and non-serious injury), or lethal take.
We developed the code to run this model in program R (R Core
Development Team 2021) and ran 10,000 iterations of the model (i.e.,
Monte Carlo simulation) to derive the estimated number of animals
disturbed and associated levels of take.
Model Results
On average, we estimated 52 (median = 51; 95% CI: 30-79) land-based
dens along the North Slope of Alaska, within which JADE's proposal is
located. Estimates for different levels of harassment takes are
presented in table
[[Page 61308]]
6. We also estimated that Level B harassment from only AIR surveys was
a mean of 0.49 (median = 0; 95% CI: 0-2). The distributions of both
non-serious Level A harassment and serious Level A harassment/lethal
takes 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 (i.e., the median value), which for both non-
serious Level A and serious Level A harassment/lethal takes is 0.0. Due
to the low (0.23 for non-serious Level A and 0.26 for serious Level A
harassment takes) probability of greater than or equal to 1 non-serious
or serious injury Level A harassment/lethal take each year of the
proposed IHA period, combined with the median of 0.0 for each, we do
not estimate the specified activities will result in non-serious-injury
or serious-injury Level A harassment or lethal take of polar bears.
Table 6--Results of the Den Disturbance Model for All Proposed
Activities During the 1-Year IHA Period. Estimates Are Provided for the
Probability, Mean, Median, and 95% Confidence Intervals for Level B, Non-
Serious Level A, and Serious Level A Harassment/Lethal Take. The
Probabilities Represent the Probability of >=1 Take of a Bear Occurring
During a Given Winter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment................ Probability......... 0.58
Mean................ 1.40
Median.............. 1.0
95% Confidence 0-6
Interval.
Non-Serious Level A............... Probability......... 0.23
Mean................ 0.51
Median.............. 0.0
95% Confidence 0-3
Interval.
Serious Level A/Lethal............ Probability......... 0.26
Mean................ 0.58
Median.............. 0.0
95% Confidence 0-4
Interval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of Impacts of Oil Spills on Polar Bears
To date, large oil spills from Industry activities in the Beaufort
Sea and coastal regions that would impact polar bears have not
occurred. Even small spills of oil or waste products have the potential
to impact some bears. The effects of fouling fur or ingesting oil or
wastes, depending on the amount of oil or wastes involved, could be
short term or result in death. For example, in April 1988, a dead polar
bear was found on Leavitt Island, northeast of Oliktok Point. The cause
of death was determined to be ingestion of a mixture that included
ethylene glycol and Rhodamine B dye (Amstrup et al. 1989). Again, in
2012, two dead polar bears that had ingested Rhodamine B were found on
Narwhal Island, northwest of Endicott. While those bears' deaths were
clearly human-caused, investigations were unable to identify a source
for the chemicals. Rhodamine B is commonly used on the North Slope of
Alaska by many people for many uses, including Industry. Without
identified sources of contamination, those bear deaths are not
attributed to Industry activity. Thus, we recognize potential impacts
of even small spills of such materials. However, because specified
activities are primarily occurring inland and during the ice season,
thereby reducing the number of polar bears that may come in contact
with any small spills that could occur and not be cleaned up at time of
occurrence, impacts due to oil spills will be very unlikely.
Wilson et al. (2018) analyzed the potential effects of a ``worst
case discharge'' (WCD) on polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. Their WCD
scenario was based on an Industry oil spill response plan for offshore
development in the region and represented underwater blowouts releasing
25,000 barrels of crude oil per day for 30 days beginning in October.
The results of this analysis suggested that between 5 and 40 percent of
a stock of 2,000 polar bears in the Chukchi Sea could be exposed to oil
if a WCD occurred. A similar analysis has not been conducted for the
Beaufort Sea; however, given the extremely low probability (i.e.,
0.0001) that an unmitigated WCD event would occur (BOEM 2016, Wilson et
al. 2017), the likelihood of such effects on polar bears in the
Beaufort Sea is extremely low.
Sum of Take From All Sources
The applicant proposes to conduct mobilization activities, well
drilling, ice road and ice pad construction, and cleanup activities
within the PBU and PTU of the North Slope of Alaska from December 1,
2021, to November 30, 2022. A summary of total estimated take via Level
B harassment during the project by source is provided in table 7. The
potential for lethal or Level A harassment was explored. Lethal take or
Level A harassment would not occur outside of denning bears because the
level of sound and visual stimuli on a bear on the surface would not be
significant enough to result in injury or death. Denning bears,
however, may be subject to repeated exposures, significant energy
expenditure from den abandonment or departure, or potential impacts to
a cub if the den is abandoned or departed prematurely. The probability
of greater than or equal to 1 lethal or serious Level A take of denning
polar bears was 0.25.
Table 7--Total Estimated Level B Harassment Events of Polar Bears and
Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Source Level B
harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Interactions.................................... 0.21
Denning Impacts......................................... 1.40
---------------
Total............................................... 1.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Assumptions
In order to conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount
of Level B harassment, we made several critical assumptions.
Level B harassment is equated herein with behavioral responses that
indicate harassment or disturbance. There is likely a portion of
animals that respond in ways that indicate some level of disturbance
but do not experience significant biological consequences. Our
estimates do not account for variable responses by polar bear age and
sex; however, sensitivity of denning bears was incorporated into the
analysis. The available information suggests that polar bears are
generally resilient to low
[[Page 61309]]
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. There is not
enough information on composition of the SBS polar bear stock in the
proposed project area 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 away from the project area or
habituation of animals to noise or human presence. Our assessment
assumes animals remain stationary (i.e., density does not change).
There is not enough information about the movement of polar bears in
response to specific disturbances to refine this assumption.
Determinations and Findings
Small Numbers
For our small numbers determination, we consider whether the
estimated number of polar bears to be subjected to incidental take is
small relative to the population size of the species or stock.
1. We estimate JADE's proposed specified activities in the
specified geographic region will take no more than 2 SBS polar bears by
two Level B harassment during the 1-year period of this proposed IHA
(see Estimated Take: Sum of Take from All Sources). Take of 2 animals
is 0.2 percent of the best available estimate of the current SBS stock
size of 907 animals SBS (Bromaghin et al. 2015, Atwood et al. 2020) ((2
/ 907) x 100 [ap] 0.2, and represents a ``small number'' of polar bears
of that stock.
2. Within the specified geographical region, the area of proposed
activity is expected to be small relative to the range of the SBS stock
of polar bears. SBS polar bears 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 this species may occur. Further,
only 17 percent of the IHA area (39,254 ha of 221,179 ha) is estimated
to be impacted by the specified activities, even accounting for a
disturbance zone surrounding industrial facility and transit routes.
Thus, the Service concludes that the area of proposed activity will be
relatively small compared to the range of the SBS stock of polar bears.
Conclusion
Therefore, we propose a finding that JADE's proposed specified
activities will take by level B harassment only small numbers of the
SBS polar bear stock because: (1) Only a small proportion of the polar
bear stock will overlap with the areas where the specified activities
will occur; and (2) only small numbers will be taken by harassment
because the specified activities are limited in spatial and temporal
extent reducing the number of SBS polar bears that could be encountered
in the duration of the proposed IHA.
Negligible Impacts
For our negligible impacts determination, we considered the
following:
1. The distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears
indicate that relatively few animals will occur in the specified areas
of activity at any particular time and, therefore, few animals are
likely to be affected.
2. The documented impacts of previous Industry activities on polar
bears, taking into consideration cumulative effects, suggests that the
types of activities analyzed for this proposed IHA will have minimal
effects and will be short-term, temporary behavioral changes. The vast
majority of reported polar bear observations have been of polar bears
moving through the proposed IHA region, undisturbed by the Industry
activity.
3. The relatively small area of the specified activities compared
to the ranges of the SBS stock of polar bears will reduce the potential
of their exposure to and disturbance from the specified activities.
4. The Service does not anticipate any lethal or injurious
harassment take that would remove individual polar bears from the
population or prevent their successful reproduction. Incidental
harassment events are anticipated to be limited to human interactions
that lead to short-term behavioral disturbances. These disturbances
would not affect the rates of recruitment or survival for polar bear
stocks. This proposed IHA does not authorize injurious or lethal take,
and we do not anticipate any such take will occur.
5. If this IHA is finalized, the applicant will be required to
adopt 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.
We also considered the specific congressional direction in
balancing the potential for a significant impact with the likelihood of
that event occurring. The specific congressional direction that
justifies balancing probabilities with impacts follows:
If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural or
speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A
finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the probability
of occurrence is low but the potential effects may be significant. In
this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts must be balanced
with 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 (53 FR 8474, March
15, 1988; 132 Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October. 15, 1986)).
We reviewed the effects of the oil and gas exploration activities
on polar bears, including impacts from surface interactions, aircraft
overflights, and oil spills. Based on our review of these potential
impacts, past Industry monitoring reports, and the biology and natural
history of polar bear, we conclude that any incidental take reasonably
likely to occur as a result of projected activities will be limited to
short-term behavioral disturbances that would not affect the rates of
recruitment or survival for the polar bear stock.
The probability of an oil spill that will cause significant impacts
to polar bears appears extremely low due to the timing and location of
specified activities. In the unlikely event of a catastrophic spill, we
will take immediate action to minimize the impacts to this species and
reconsider the appropriateness of authorizations for incidental taking
through section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
We have evaluated climate change regarding polar bears. Climate
change is a global phenomenon and was considered as the overall driver
of effects that could alter polar bear habitat and behavior. Though
climate change is a pressing conservation issue for polar bears, we
have concluded that the authorized incidental taking of polar bears
during the activities proposed by JADE during this proposed 1-year
authorization will not adversely impact
[[Page 61310]]
the survival of the species, or stock, and will have no more than
negligible effects. 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.
Therefore, we propose a finding that two Level B harassments in
association with the specified activities addressed under this proposed
IHA will have no more than a negligible impact on the SBS stock of
polar bears. We do not expect any resulting disturbance to negatively
impact the rates of recruitment or survival for the polar bear stock.
This proposed IHA does not authorize lethal take, and we do not
anticipate that any lethal take will occur.
Least Practicable Adverse Impact
We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of mitigation
measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the specified
activities; the best available scientific information; and monitoring
data during Industry activities in the specified geographic region. We
propose a finding that the mitigation measures included within JADE's
Request will ensure least practicable adverse impacts on polar bears
(JADE 2021).
Polar bear den surveys before activities begin during the denning
season, the resulting 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone around
all 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
time. Minimum flight elevations over polar bear areas and flight
restrictions around known polar bear dens will reduce the potential for
bears to be disturbed by aircraft. Finally, JADE will implement
mitigation measures to prevent the presence and impact of attractants
such as the use of wildlife-resistant waste receptacles and enclosing
access doors and stairs. These measures are outlined in a polar bear
interaction plan that was developed in coordination with the Service
and is part of JADE'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 JADE's Request (JADE 2021) and incorporated into this
authorization will minimize impacts from the specified oil and gas
activities to the extent practicable.
A number of mitigation measures were considered but determined to
be not practicable. These measures are listed below:
Required use of helicopters for AIR surveys--Use of
helicopters to survey active dens might lead to greater levels of
disturbance and take compared to fixed-wing aircraft. Additionally,
there is no published data to indicate increased den detection efficacy
of helicopter AIR.
Grounding all flights if they must fly below 1,500 feet--
Requiring all aircraft to maintain an altitude of 1,500 ft at all times
is not practicable as some operations may require flying below 1,500 ft
to perform necessary inspections or maintain safety of flight crew.
Aircraft are required, however, to fly above 1,500 ft at all times,
except for emergencies, within 805 m (0.5 mi) of an observed polar
bear.
Spatial and temporal restrictions on surface activity--
Some spatial and temporal restrictions of operations were included in
JADE's Request; however, additional restrictions would not be
practicable for the specified activities based on other regulatory and
safety requirements.
One-mile buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat--One-mile buffer around all known polar bear denning habitat is
not practicable as most of the existing infrastructure used by JADE
occurs within 1 mile of denning habitat, and they would not be able to
shut down all operations based on other regulatory and safety
requirements.
Prohibition of driving over high relief areas,
embankments, or stream and river crossings--While the denning habitat
must be considered in tundra travel activities, complete prohibition is
not practicable for safety reasons.
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 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.
Requirement of third-party neutral marine mammal
observers--It is often not practicable to hire third-party marine
mammal observers due to operational constraints. Additional crew may
require additional transit vehicles, which could increase disturbance.
Require all activities to cease if a polar bear is injured
or killed until an investigation is completed--The Service has
incorporated into this proposed authorization reporting requirements
for all polar bear interactions. While it may aid in any subsequent
investigation, ceasing all activities may not be practicable or safe in
certain circumstances 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 along the winter trail
route and project area.
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. There would likely be no additional benefit to requiring
ground-based FLIR methods.
Impact on Subsistence Use
Based on past community consultations, locations of hunting areas,
no anticipated overlap of hunting areas and Industry projects, and the
best scientific information available, including monitoring data from
similar activities, we propose a finding that take caused by the
proposed oil and gas exploration 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 Kaktovik
community, the harvest of these species is important to Alaska Natives.
JADE will be required to contact subsistence communities that may be
affected by its activities to discuss potential conflicts caused by
location, timing, and methods of proposed operations. JADE 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. Although past meetings for the proposed
project, prior to being postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic, have
already taken place, no official concerns have been voiced by the
Alaska Native communities regarding project activities limiting
availability of polar bears for
[[Page 61311]]
subsistence uses. However, should such a concern be voiced, development
of Plans of Cooperation (POCs), 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 JADE 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 the expected level of oil and
gas activity. If there is evidence that these oil and gas 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.
Monitoring and Reporting
The purpose of monitoring requirements is to assess the effects of
project activities on polar bears, ensure that take is consistent with
that anticipated in the negligible impact and subsistence use analyses,
and detect any unanticipated effects on the species or stock.
Monitoring plans document when and how bears are encountered, the
number of bears, and their behavior during the encounter. This
information allows the Service to measure encounter rates and trends of
polar bear activity in the industrial areas (such as numbers and
gender, activity, seasonal use) and to estimate numbers of animals
potentially affected by Industry. Monitoring plans are site-specific,
dependent on the proximity of the activity to important habitat areas,
such as den sites, travel corridors, and food sources; however, JADE is
required to report all sightings of polar bears. To the extent
possible, monitors will record group size, age, sex, reaction, duration
of interaction, and closest approach to facilities onshore. Activities
within the specified geographic region may incorporate daily watch logs
as well, which record 24-hour animal observations throughout the
duration of the project. Polar bear monitors will be incorporated into
the monitoring plan if bears are known to frequent the area or known
polar bear dens are present in the area.
The Service will provide JADE with the most recent and up-to-date
Polar Bear Observation Form in which to record sightings of bears.
Sightings must be reported to the Service Office of Marine Mammal
Management (MMM) within 48 hours of the sighting and submitted to
fw7_mmm_reports@fws.gov. Details on monitoring guidelines and reporting
requirements can be read below in Proposed Authorization, (C)
Monitoring and (E) Reporting Requirements.
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 take by Level B harassment
of up to two polar bears from the SBS stock in the specified geographic
region during the specified activities during the regulatory period
would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment
and, thus, preparation of an environmental impact statement for this
incidental harassment authorization is not required by section 102(2)
of NEPA or its implementing regulations. We are accepting comments on
the draft environmental assessment as specified above in DATES and
ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act
Under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all Federal agencies are
required to ensure the actions they authorize are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Prior to issuance of this proposed 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. The authorization of incidental take of
polar bears and the measures included in the proposed IHA will not
affect other listed species or designated critical habitat.
Government-to-Government Coordination
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a
Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native
Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We seek their full and
meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing conservation
concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain sensitive to
Alaska Native culture, and to make information available to Alaska
Natives. Our efforts are guided by the following policies and
directives: (1) The Native American Policy of the Service (January 20,
2016); (2) The Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft
form); (3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000); (4) Department of
the Interior Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5, 1997), 3225 (January 19,
2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), and 3342 (October 21, 2016); (5) The
Alaska Government-to-Government Policy (a departmental memorandum
issued January 18, 2001); and (6) the Department of the Interior's
policies on consultation with Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the specified activities on
federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and organizations. Through
the IHA process identified in the MMPA, the applicant has presented a
communication process, culminating in a POC if needed, with the Native
organizations and communities most likely to be affected by their work.
The Service does not anticipate impacts to Alaska Native Tribes or
ANCSA corporations and does not anticipate requesting consultation;
however, we invite continued discussion, either about the project and
its impacts or about our coordination and information exchange
throughout the IHA/POC process.
Proposed Authorization
We propose to authorize the nonlethal, incidental take by Level B
harassment of two SBS stock polar bears. Authorized take will be
limited to disruption of behavioral patterns that may be caused by oil
and gas exploration and support activities conducted by JADE Energy
Inc. (JADE) in the Prudhoe Bay Unit (PBU) and the Point Thomson Unit
(PTU) of the North Slope of Alaska, from December 1, 2021, through
November 30, 2022. We do not anticipate or authorize any take by Level
A harassment, injury, or death to polar bears resulting from these
activities.
A. General Conditions for This IHA
(1) Activities must be conducted in the manner described in the
request dated August 2, 2021, 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
[[Page 61312]]
not fully implemented as required by the IHA is prohibited. Failure to
follow the measures specified both in the revised request and within
this proposed authorization may result in the modification, suspension,
or revocation of the IHA.
(2) If project activities cause unauthorized take (i.e., take of
more than two polar bears, a form of take other than Level B
harassment, or take of one or more polar bears through methods not
described in the IHA), JADE must take the following actions: (i) Cease
its activities immediately (or reduce activities to the minimum level
necessary to maintain safety); (ii) report the details of the incident
to the Service within 48 hours; and (iii) suspend further activities
until the Service has reviewed the circumstances and determined whether
additional mitigation measures are necessary to avoid further
unauthorized taking.
(3) All operations managers, vehicle operators, and aircraft pilots
must receive a copy of this IHA and maintain access to it for reference
at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be
fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the
IHA at all times during project work.
(4) This IHA will apply to activities associated with the proposed
project as described in this document and in JADE's revised request.
Changes to the proposed project without prior authorization may
invalidate the IHA.
(5) JADE's request is approved and fully incorporated into this
IHA, unless exceptions are specifically noted herein. The request
includes:
JADE's original request for an IHA, dated May 19, 2021
(JADE 2021);
The letters requesting additional information, dated May
25, 2021;
JADE's responses to requests for additional information
from the Service, dated May 25, 2021;
JADE's revised request for an IHA, dated June 9, 2021;
JADE's revised request for an IHA, dated August 2, 2021;
and
The JADE Exploration and Appraisal Program Wildlife
Avoidance and Interaction Plan (Appendix A in JADE 2021).
(6) 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 JADE's authority,
including all contractors and subcontractors.
B. Avoidance and Minimization
JADE must implement the following policies and procedures to avoid
interactions with and minimize to the greatest extent practicable any
adverse impacts on polar bears, their habitat, and the availability of
these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
(a) General avoidance measures.
(1) JADE 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
at all times for the presence of polar bears, initiate mitigation
measures, and monitor, record, and report the effects of the activities
on polar bears. JADE must provide all operators with polar bear
awareness training prior to their participation in project activities.
Delivery of this polar bear awareness training must include Service
participation.
(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) JADE 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.
(b) Mitigation measures for onshore activities. JADE must undertake
the following activities to limit disturbance around known polar bear
dens:
(1) Attempt to locate bear dens. JADE must conduct two surveys for
occupied polar bear dens in all denning habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of
specified activities using AIR imagery. The first survey must occur
prior to construction activities between the dates of November 25 and
December 15, and a second survey must be performed between the dates of
December 5 and December 31. All observed or suspected polar bear dens
must be reported to the Service prior to the initiation of activities.
(i) AIR surveys will be conducted during darkness or civil twilight
and not during daylight hours. Ideal environmental conditions during
surveys would be clear, calm, and cold. If there is blowing snow, any
form of precipitation, or other sources of airborne moisture, use of
AIR detection is not advised. Flight crews will record and report
environmental parameters including air temperature, dew point, wind
speed and direction, cloud ceiling, and percent humidity, and a flight
log will be provided to the Service within 48 hours of the flight.
(ii) A scientist experienced in interpreting AIR imagery will be on
board the survey aircraft to analyze the AIR data in real-time. The
data (infrared video) will be available for viewing by the Service
immediately upon return of the survey aircraft to the base of
operations in Deadhorse, Alaska. Data will be transmitted
electronically to the Service in Anchorage for review.
(iii) If a suspected den site is located, JADE will immediately
consult with the Service to analyze the data and determine if
additional surveys or mitigation measures are required. All located
dens will be subject to the 1.6-km (1.0-mi) exclusion zone as described
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The Service will determine whether
the suspected den is to be treated as a putative den for the purposes
of this IHA.
(2) Observe 1-mile operational exclusion zone around known polar
bear dens. 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
previously unknown occupied dens 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 the holder of the authorization must comply with any additional
measures specified.
(3) Use the den habitat map developed by the USGS. 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-
[[Page 61313]]
science_center_objects=4#qt-science_center_objects.
(4) Temporal restriction after July 18. Proposed cleanup activities
must conclude prior to July 19 to reduce the likelihood of disturbance
to polar bears and potential for human-polar bear interactions.
(c) Mitigation measures for aircraft.
(1) Aircraft elevation and flight path restrictions to avoid
disturbance. Operators of support aircraft should, at all times,
conduct their activities at the maximum distance practicable from
concentrations of polar bears. 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 polar bears observed on ice or land
measured in a straight line between the bear and the ground directly
underneath the plane. Aircraft may be operated below 457 m (1,500 ft)
only when necessary to avoid adverse weather conditions. However, when
weather conditions 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 mile) of these areas.
(2) Aircraft landing and take-off spatial restrictions. Aircraft
will not land within 805 m (0.5 mi) of a polar bear. If a polar bear is
observed while the aircraft is grounded, personnel will board the
aircraft and leave the area. The pilot will also avoid flying over the
polar bear if possible. Pilots should avoid making any sudden
maneuvers, especially when traveling at lower altitudes, even if such
maneuvers are intended to avoid polar bears. The Service recommends
that if a polar bear is spotted within the landing zone or work area,
aircraft operators travel away from the site, and slowly increase
altitude to 1,500 ft or a level that is safest and viable given current
traveling conditions. Aircraft may not be operated in such a way as to
separate individual polar bears from a group of polar bears.
C. Monitoring
(1) Operators must provide onsite observers and implement the
Service-approved polar bear avoidance and interaction plan to apply
mitigation measures, monitor the project's effects on polar bears and
subsistence uses, and to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
(2) All onsite observers shall complete a Service-provided training
course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and
mitigation activities identified in the polar bear avoidance and
interaction plan.
(3) 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.
(4) 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, JADE 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 bear 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
JADE 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) JADE will be required to develop a Service-approved Plan of
Cooperation (POC) if, through community consultation, concerns are
raised regarding impacts to subsistence harvest or Alaska Native Tribes
and organizations.
(2) If required, JADE will implement the Service-approved POC.
(3) Prior to conducting the work, JADE will take the following
steps to reduce potential effects on subsistence harvest of polar
bears: (i) Avoid work in areas of known polar bear subsistence harvest;
(ii) discuss the planned activities with subsistence stakeholders
including the North Slope Borough, the Native Village of Kaktovik, the
State of Alaska, the Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and other
interested parties on a Federal, State, and local regulatory level;
(iii) identify and work to resolve concerns of stakeholders regarding
the project's effects on subsistence hunting of polar bears; (iv) if
any unresolved or ongoing concerns remain, modify the POC in
consultation with the Service and subsistence stakeholders to address
these concerns; and (v) develop mitigation measures that will reduce
impacts to subsistence users and their resources.
E. Reporting Requirements
JADE must report the results of monitoring to the Service MMM via
email at: fw7_mmm_reports@fws.gov.
(1) In-season monitoring reports.
(i) Activity progress reports. JADE must:
(A) Notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
(B) Provide the Service weekly progress reports summarizing
activities. Reports must include GPS/GIS tracks of all vehicles
including scout vehicles in .kml or .shp format with time/date stamps
and metadata.
(C) Notify the Service within 48 hours of project completion or end
of the work season.
(ii) Polar bear observation reports. JADE must report, within 48
hours, all observations of polar bears and potential polar bear dens
during any project activities including AIR surveys. Upon request,
monitoring report data must be provided in a common electronic format
(to be specified by the Service). Information in the observation report
must include, but need not be limited to:
(A) Date and time of each observation;
(B) Locations of the observer and bears (GPS coordinates if
possible);
(C) Number of polar bears;
(D) Sex and age class--adult, subadult, cub (if known);
(E) Observer name and contact information;
(F) Weather, visibility, and if at sea, sea state, and sea-ice
conditions at the time of observation;
(G) Estimated closest distance of polar bears from personnel and
facilities;
(H) Type of work being conducted at time of sighting;
(I) Possible attractants present;
(J) Polar bear behavior--initial behavior when first observed
(e.g., walking, swimming, resting, etc.);
(K) Potential reaction--behavior of bear potentially in response to
presence or activity of personnel and equipment;
(L) Description of the encounter;
(M) Duration of the encounter; and
(N) Mitigation actions taken.
(2) Notification of human-bear interaction incident report. JADE
must report all human-bear interaction incidents immediately, and not
later than 48 hours after the incident. A human-bear interaction
incident is any situation in which there is a possibility for
unauthorized take. For instance, when project activities exceed those
included in an IHA, when a mitigation measure was required but not
enacted, or when injury or death of a polar bear occurs. Reports must
include:
(i) All information specified for an observation report in
paragraphs (1)(ii)(A)-(N) of this section E;
[[Page 61314]]
(ii) A complete detailed description of the incident; and
(iii) Any other actions taken.
Injured, dead, or distressed polar bears that are clearly not
associated with project activities (e.g., animals found outside the
project area, previously wounded animals, or carcasses with moderate to
advanced decomposition or scavenger damage) must also be reported to
the Service immediately, and not later than 48 hours after discovery.
Photographs, video, location information, or any other available
documentation must be included.
(3) Final report. The results of monitoring and mitigation efforts
identified in the polar bear avoidance and interaction plan must be
submitted to the Service for review within 90 days of the expiration of
this IHA. Upon request, final report data must be provided in a common
electronic format (to be specified by the Service). Information in the
final report must include, but 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 if you are commenting on the proposed authorization,
draft environmental assessment, or both, make your comments as specific
as possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed
authorization, and explain the reason for any changes you recommend.
Where possible, your comments should reference the specific section or
paragraph that you are addressing. The Service will consider all
comments that are received before the close of the comment period (see
DATES). The Service does not anticipate extending the public comment
period beyond the 30 days required under section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of
the MMPA.
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
become part of the administrative record for this proposal. Before
including your address, telephone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your
entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comments to withhold from public review your personal identifying
information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Karen Cogswell,
Acting Regional Director, Alaska Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-24371 Filed 11-3-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P