[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9891-9903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03185]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2022-0141; FXES111607MRG01-234-FF07CAMM00]
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities;
Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for the Southern Beaufort
Sea Stock of Polar Bears in the Prudhoe Bay 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, in response to a
request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended,
from BP America Production Company, propose to authorize nonlethal
incidental take by harassment of small numbers of Southern Beaufort Sea
(SBS) polar bears (Ursus maritimus) between issuance and December 14,
2023. The applicant requested this authorization for take by harassment
that may result from activities associated with closure, remediation,
and rehabilitation of the Foggy Island Bay State No. 1 gravel pad in
the Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope of Alaska. We estimate that
this project may result in the nonlethal incidental take by harassment
of up to three SBS polar bears. This proposed authorization, if
finalized, will be for up to three takes of polar bears by Level B
harassment only. No take by injury or mortality is requested, expected,
or proposed to be authorized.
DATES: Comments on this proposed incidental harassment authorization
and the accompanying draft environmental assessment must be received by
March 17, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may view this proposed incidental
harassment authorization, the application package, supporting
information, draft environmental assessment, and the list of references
cited herein at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-
2022-0141 or these documents may be requested from the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment submission: You may submit comments on the
proposed authorization by one of the following methods:
U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2022-0141, 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-2022-0141.
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
[[Page 9892]]
will be able to do so. See Request for Public Comments for more
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Burgess, 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. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind,
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals in
response to requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 18, at 50 CFR 18.27(c))
engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) in a
specified geographic region during a period of not more than 1 year.
The Secretary has delegated authority for implementation of the MMPA to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we). According to the
MMPA, the Service shall allow this incidental taking by harassment if
we make findings that the total of such taking for the 1-year period:
(1) is of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock;
(2) will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks; and
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of these species or stocks for taking for subsistence use by Alaska
Natives.
If the requisite findings are made, we issue an authorization that
sets forth the following, where applicable:
(a) permissible methods of taking;
(b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or
stock for subsistence uses; and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking by
harassment, including, in certain circumstances, requirements for the
independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans or other research
proposals.
The term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or to
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 impacts'' as two 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 not so
restrictive as to make project activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete.
If the requisite findings are made, we shall issue an IHA, which
may set forth the following, where applicable: (i) permissible methods
of taking; (ii) other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence
uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives (if applicable); and (iii)
requirements for monitoring and reporting take by harassment.
Summary of Request
On September 1, 2022, the Service received a request on behalf of
BP America Production Company (BPAPC) for authorization to take by
nonlethal incidental harassment small numbers of SBS polar bears (Ursus
maritimus) during closure, remediation, and rehabilitation of the Foggy
Island State No. 1 wellpad in the Prudhoe Bay Area of the North Slope
of Alaska for a period between issuance and December 14, 2023. Their
request also included a proposed Human-Polar Bear Interaction Plan. The
applicant discussed operational timelines and mitigation measures with
the Service prior to request submittal. On September 21, 2022, the
Service requested clarification on several aspects of the request. The
BPAPC resubmitted their request, including clarifying information, on
September 26, 2022. The Service deemed this request (hereafter referred
to as the ``Request'') adequate and complete on September 27, 2022.
Description of Specified Activities and Specified Geographic Region
The specified activities described in the Request consist of
closure, remediation, and rehabilitation of the Foggy Island State No.
1 pad (hereafter referred to as the ``pad'') in the Prudhoe Bay Area
(figure 1). The abandoned pad contains contaminated materials and foam
insulation that will be removed and disposed of in accordance with the
Foggy Island Bay State No. 1 Revised Corrective Action Plan (ERM
Alaska, Inc. 2022a).
[[Page 9893]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15FE23.000
Maternal Den Surveys
BPAPC will utilize two aerial infrared (IR) maternal den surveys to
identify any active polar bear dens in the area. The surveyors will use
IR cameras on fixed-wing aircrafts with flights flown between 245-457
meters (800-1,500 feet) above ground level at a speed of <185 km/h
(<115 mph). These surveys will be concentrated on areas within 1.6 km
(1 mi) of project activities that would be suitable for polar bear
denning activity such as drainages, banks, bluffs, or other areas of
topographic relief.
Ice Road and Ice Pad Construction
There exist no permanent roads that lead to the pad. Therefore, a
1.7-kilometer (km) (1.06-mile [mi]) ice road will be constructed
between the Endicott Causeway and the pad for access. Additionally, a
small, 0.2-km (0.12-mi) spur ice-road to a nearby lake for procuring
ice chips will be required. The BPAPC will also construct an ice pad
totaling 7.663 acres (ac) surrounding the gravel pad to stage and
maneuver equipment. Ice road and pad construction will begin with pre-
packing, which will take 2 days, followed by road and pad construction.
The construction phase is anticipated to last 8 days.
Site Remediation
The pad currently contains an inactive exploratory well, several
areas of confirmed soil contamination, and foam board, all of which
require remediation. The BPAPC will construct a debris collection fence
around the existing gravel pad and clear the area of snow. They will
then excavate the well cellar, cut the well casing, and plug the
abandoned exploration well. They will use an excavator to extract the
soil and foam board, segregate clean from contaminated materials, and
transport contaminated materials for disposal off site.
Material Disposal
Contaminated materials will be transported using dump trucks via
ice road and then gravel road to the grind and inject facility found at
DS4 pad in the Prudhoe Bay area. Foam board will be transported to the
Oxbow Landfill. After disposing of the foam board, dump trucks will
stop at the nearby Put 23 mine site to pick up clean organic backfill
for site rehabilitation.
Site Rehabilitation
Clean, organic backfill from the Put 23 mine will be used to
restore the pad to natural grade. During a 5-day period in the summer
of 2023, a five-person crew will be transported to the former pad site
via airboat to reseed the pad with indigenous vegetation. The location
will also be treated with fertilizer at a rate of 200 pounds per acre
with 10-20-20 N-P-K to promote seeding success. Fertilizer rates or
types may change at the recommendation of the Alaska Plant Materials
Center.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region
The polar bear is the only species of marine mammal under the
Service's jurisdiction likely found within the specified geographic
region. Information on range, stocks, biology, and climate impacts on
polar bears can be found in the final rule published by the Service on
August 5, 2021, implementing the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR
42982, August 5, 2021) as well as in Appendix A of the supplemental
information (available as described above in ADDRESSES).
Potential Impacts of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals
Anthropogenic 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 they 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
[[Page 9894]]
(mid-July to mid-November) than at other times of the year.
A majority of on-land polar bear observations documented by the
Service occur within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the coastline, which overlaps
with the location for a portion of these specified activities.
Encounters are more likely to occur during the fall at locations on or
near the coast. Polar bear interaction plans, training, and monitoring
have the potential to reduce human-polar bear encounters and the risks
to polar 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 and to minimize impacts to the polar bears. Interaction
plans also detail how to respond to the presence of polar bears, the
chain of command and communication, and required training for
personnel.
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 ice pad construction, well
plugging, material removal and dumping, grading, and remediation
activities. Mobile sources include vehicle traffic over gravel and ice
roads and airboat trips.
The potential behavioral reaction of polar bears to the specified
activities can vary by activity type. Noise generated on the ground by
well plugging or material removal and grading activity may cause a
behavioral (e.g., escape response) or physiologic response (e.g.,
increased heart rate, hormonal response) (Harms et al. 1997, Tempel and
Gutierrez 2003). The available studies of polar bear behavior indicate
that the intensity of polar bear reaction to noise disturbance may vary
based on previous interactions, sex, age, and maternal status (Dyck and
Baydack 2004, Anderson and Aars 2008).
Effects to Denning Polar Bears
The Service monitors known polar bear dens around the North Slope
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, BPAPC included in their Request plans to utilize
aerial infrared (IR) maternal den surveys as well as handheld and/or
vehicle-mounted IR of all areas with snow accumulation surrounding the
pad weekly. If a polar bear den is located, activities are required to
avoid the den by 1.6 km (1 mi). When a previously unknown den is
discovered in proximity to ongoing activities, BPAPC 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).
Estimated Take
The applicant requested authorization only for take by Level B
harassment, and the Service is proposing to authorize only take by
Level B harassment for this IHA. Level B harassment for nonmilitary
readiness activities means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance
that has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, feeding,
or sheltering. 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;
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.
Surface Interactions
Impact Area
To assess the area of potential impact from the project activities,
we calculate the area affected by project activities where harassment
is possible. We refer to this area as 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
polar bears and disturbance is limited. Dyck and Baydack (2004) found
sex-based differences in the frequencies of vigilance 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 that the
application of a 1.6 km (1.0 mi) disturbance zone will encompass the
vast majority of polar bear harassment events.
Estimated Harassment
We estimated Level B harassment using the spatio-temporally
specific encounter rates and temporally specific harassment rates
derived in the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021)
in conjunction with BPAPC's project operations footprint. Table 1
provides the definition for each variable used in the take formulas.
[[Page 9895]]
Table 1--Definitions of Variables Used in Take Estimates of Non-Denning
Polar Bears on the Coast of the North Slope of Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bes.............................. bears encountered in zone of
potential impact for the entire
season.
ac............................... coastal exposure area.
ai............................... inland exposure area.
ro............................... occupancy rate.
eci.............................. coastal ice season bear-encounter
rate in bears/season.
eii.............................. inland ice season bear-encounter rate
in bears/season.
ti............................... ice season harassment rate.
Bt............................... 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 polar bears
encountered per square kilometer per season. As a part of their
Request, BPAPC provided the Service with digital geospatial files and
project dates that were used to determine the maximum expected human
occupancy (i.e., rate of occupancy (ro)) for each season. We
assumed 100 percent human occupancy during activities. Using the buffer
tool in ArcGIS, we created a spatial file of a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer
around all proposed structures and transit routes. 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 season.
Impact areas were multiplied by the appropriate encounter rate to
obtain the number of polar bears expected to be encountered in an area
of interest per season (Bes). The equation below (equation
1) provides an example of the calculation of polar bears encountered in
the ice season for an area of interest in the coastal zone.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15FE23.001
To generate the number of estimated Level B harassments for each
area of interest, we multiplied the number of polar bears in the area
of interest per season by the proportion of the season the area is
occupied, the rate of occupancy, and the harassment rate (equation 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15FE23.002
Methods for Modeling the Effects of Den Disturbance
Probability for the Possibility of Take
When modeling take associated with den disturbance, we applied
probabilities for the possibility of take of denning bears that were
established through the analysis of 57 case studies as described in the
2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021). These
probabilities were specific to exposure type and denning stage.
Den Simulation
Although the impact area of the BPAPC's activities does not span
the entire North Slope of Alaska, we simulated dens across the entire
North Slope 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. By simulating dens across the North Slope and then focusing
our analysis as needed to the potential impact area, we ensured the
distribution of dens was consistent with 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 National Wildlife 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 National Wildlife 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 National Wildlife
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 U.S. Geological Survey
(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 polar bears or through systematic
surveys for denning polar bears (Durner et al. 2020). This process
resulted in a sample of 37 dens of which 22 (i.e., 60 percent)
[[Page 9896]]
occurred on barrier islands. For each iteration of the model, we then
determined how many of the estimated dens in the CC region occurred on
barrier islands versus the mainland.
To make this determination, we first took a random sample from a
binomial distribution to determine the expected number of dens from the
den 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 considered the potential impacts of activity only to
those dens simulated to occur in the region with denning habitat
identified (Durner et al. 2013).
To account for the potential influence of industrial activities and
infrastructure on the distribution of polar bear selection of den
sites, we again relied on a 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. From these values, we determined that 15 percent of
mainland dens were located within 3 km (1.86 mi) of infrastructure. We
again took a similar approach as with the barrier islands to estimate
how many dens occur within 3 km (1.86 mi) of infrastructure; given the
simulated number of dens on the CC mainland region,
nmainland, as determined above, we then calculated the
number of dens within 3 km (1.86 mi) of infrastructure as
ninfrastructure=Binomial(nmainland,0.15) for each
iteration of the model, with the remainder of simulated mainland dens
placed greater than 3 km (1.86 mi) from infrastructure.
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 polar bears or through
systematic surveys for denning polar bears (Durner et al. 2020). To
approximate the distribution of dens, we used an adaptive kernel
density estimator (Terrell and Scott 1992) applied to
n
observed den locations, which took the form
f(s)[vprop][thgr]n[sum]nik(s-sih(s))fs[vprop][thgr]n[sum]inks-sihs,
where the adaptive bandwidth
h(s)=([beta]0+[beta]1I(si[isin]M)I(s[isin]M))[beta]2hs=[beta]0+[beta]1Is
i[isin]MIs[isin]M[beta]2
for the location of the ith den and each location
s
in the study area. The indicator functions allowed the bandwidth to
vary abruptly between the mainland
M
and barrier islands. The kernel k was the Gaussian kernel, and the
parameters
[thgr], [beta]0, [beta]1, [beta]2[thgr], [beta]0, [beta]1, [beta]2
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.
As in previous take authorizations, the kernel density map we used
for this analysis considers denning habitat in the CC region, where
more denning occurs on barrier islands compared to the other two
regions. 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 2) 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 to be in one of two bins, within 3 km, or greater than 3
km from infrastructure, as 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 9897]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15FE23.003
For each simulated den, we assigned dates of key denning events:
Den entrance, birth of cubs, when cubs reached 60 days of age, den
emergence, and departure from the den site after emergence. These
represent the chronology of each den under undisturbed conditions. We
selected the entrance date for each den from a normal distribution
parameterized by entrance dates of radio-collared polar bears in the
SBS 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 polar bear was in the den for greater than
or equal to 60 days to reduce the chances of including non-maternal
polar bears using shelter dens. Sixty days represents the minimum age
of cubs before they have a chance of survival outside of the den. Thus,
denning periods of less than 60 days in the den have a higher chance of
reflecting shelter dens use.
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 polar 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 not to 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 post-emergence
days spent at 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 duration for each den
from this distribution. We restricted time spent 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. Only three
[[Page 9898]]
bears in the USGS (2018) data met this criterion, 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. We used the geospatial files provided with
the Request, which included start and end dates, to estimate the
potential for take of denning polar bears due to BPAPC's proposed
activities.
Model Implementation
For each iteration of the model, we first determined which dens
were exposed to the simulated activities and infrastructure. We assumed
that any den within 1.6 km (1 mi) of infrastructure or human activity
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). For dens exposed to human activity, we then identified
the stage in the denning cycle when the exposure occurred based on the
date range of the activities to which the den was exposed. We then
determined whether the exposure elicited a response by the denning
polar bear based on probabilities derived from the reviewed case
studies.
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. The
specified activities had a discountable risk of a direct collision with
a den, which may result in a fatal injury to a sow or could reduce her
future reproductive potential. For the ice road and ice pad, crews will
constantly be on the lookout for signs of denning, use vehicle-based
forward-looking infrared cameras and handheld IR to scan for dens, and
will largely avoid crossing topographic features (i.e., areas of relief
that may sustain long-lasting snow drifts) suitable for denning. Thus,
the risk of running over a den was deemed to have a probability so low
that it was discountable.
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. Due to its unique and non-analogous fact pattern,
this case study was excluded 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 harassment 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
Estimates for different levels of harassment takes are presented in
table 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
mode), which for both non-serious Level A and serious Level A
harassment/lethal takes is 0.0. Due to the low probabilities (0.011 for
non-serious Level A harassment and 0.017 for serious Level A
harassment/lethal take) of one or more non-serious or serious injury
Level A harassment/lethal take for the proposed IHA period, combined
with the mode of 0.0 injurious takes, we do not anticipate the
specified activities will result in non-serious-injury or serious-
injury Level A harassment or lethal take of polar bears and would not
authorize Level A harassment with this authorization nor was it
requested.
Table 2--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
percent confidence intervals (CI) for take by Level B harassment, non-
serious-injury take by Level A harassment, and serious-injury take by
Level A harassment/lethal take for denning bears only. The probabilities
represent the probability of >=1 take by Level B harassment of a denning
polar bear occurring during a given winter]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Harassment:
Probability................................................ 0.120
Mean....................................................... 0.145
Median..................................................... 0.0
95% CI..................................................... 0-1
Non-Serious Level A Harassment:
Probability................................................ 0.011
Mean....................................................... 0.020
Median..................................................... 0.0
95% CI..................................................... 0-0
Serious Level A Harassment/Lethal:
Probability................................................ 0.017
Mean....................................................... 0.033
Median..................................................... 0.0
95% CI..................................................... 0-0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of Take From All Sources
The applicant proposes to conduct closure, remediation, and
rehabilitation activities at the Foggy Island State No. 1 pad in the
Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope of Alaska upon issuance of the
required IHA and extending through December 14, 2023. A summary of
total estimated take via Level B harassment during the project by
source is provided in table 3. The potential for lethal take and Level
A harassment was explored. Lethal take or Level A harassment would not
occur outside of denning polar bears because the level of sound and
visual stimuli experienced by polar bear on the surface would not be
significant enough to result in injury or death. Denning polar bears,
however, may be subject to repeated exposures, significant energy
expenditure from den abandonment or departure, or potential impacts to
a cub if the den is abandoned or departed prematurely. The probability
of greater than or equal to one lethal or serious Level A take of
denning polar bears is 0.017.
Table 3--Total Estimated Takes by Level B Harassment of Polar Bears and
Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
estimated
Source level B
harassment
events
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter activities--Bears on the surface.................... 1
[[Page 9899]]
Winter activities--Denning bears........................... 1
Summer reclamation activities.............................. 1
------------
Total.................................................. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Likely a portion of animals 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 polar bears was incorporated into the analysis. The available
information suggests that polar bears are generally resilient to low
levels of disturbance. Females with dependent young and juvenile polar
bears are physiologically the most sensitive (Andersen and Aars 2008)
and most likely to experience harassment from disturbance. 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
In making this finding, we considered the best available scientific
information, including: the biological and behavioral characteristics
of the species, the most recent information on species distribution and
abundance within the area of the specified activities, the current and
expected future status of the stock (including existing and foreseeable
human and natural stressors), the potential sources of disturbance
caused by the project, and the potential responses of marine mammals to
this disturbance. In addition, we reviewed applicant-provided
materials, information in our files and datasets, published reference
materials, and species experts.
Small Numbers
For our small numbers determination, we consider whether the
estimated number of polar bears to be subjected to incidental take is
small relative to the population size of the species or stock.
1. We estimate BPAPC's proposed specified activities in the
specified geographic region will cause no more than harassment (Level
B) to three polar bears during the 1-year period of this proposed IHA
(see Sum of Take from All Sources). Take of 3 animals is 0.33 percent
of the best available estimate of the current SBS stock size of 907
animals (Bromaghin et al. 2015, Atwood et al. 2020) ((3/907) x
100[ap]0.33 percent) and represents a ``small number'' of polar bears
of that stock.
2. Within the specified geographic region is 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. Thus, the Service concludes that a small
portion of the SBS polar bear population may be present in the
specified geographic region during the time of the specified
activities.
Small Numbers Conclusion
Therefore, we propose a finding that BPAPC's 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) the number of SBS polar bears estimated to be subjected to
Level B harassment via BPAPC's specified activities--3--represents less
than 0.5 percent of the latest stock estimate of 907 polar bears, and
is thus a small number relative to the size of the stock.
Negligible Impact
We propose a finding that any incidental take by Level B harassment
resulting from the proposed project cannot be reasonably expected to,
and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival and will, therefore,
have no more than a negligible impact on the SBS stock of polar bears.
Polar bears are likely to respond to the specified activities with
temporary behavioral modification or displacement if in the area during
the project dates. These reactions are unlikely to have consequences
for the long-term health, reproduction, or survival of affected
animals. Most animals will respond to disturbance by moving away from
the source, which may cause temporary interruption of foraging,
resting, or other natural behaviors. Affected animals are expected to
resume normal behaviors soon after exposure with no lasting
consequences. We anticipate up to two polar bears may respond to
disturbance with a biologically significant behavioral change during
winter activities, and up to one polar bear may respond to disturbance
with a biologically significant behavioral change during summer
reclamation activities.
The proposed activities will result in disturbances within an
industrial area with previously existing and consistent disturbance.
While the specified activities include the construction of a short ice
road and ice pad during polar bear denning season, there is limited
denning habitat near these temporary structures. Further, the denning
habitat that is within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the ice road and ice pad is
also within the impact area of frequently traveled permanent roads.
Thus, no previously undisturbed denning habitat will be impacted by the
specified activities. Reclamation activities are planned for a short
period (5 days) in the summer; however, BPAPC has committed to
conducting these activities prior to mid-July to avoid the increase in
polar bears on land that begins in late July.
Our proposed finding of negligible impact applies to incidental
take associated with the proposed activities as mitigated by the
avoidance and minimization measures identified in BPAPC's mitigation
and monitoring plan. These mitigation measures are designed to minimize
interactions with and impacts to polar bears. These measures and the
monitoring and reporting procedures are required for the validity of
our finding and are a necessary component of the proposed IHA. For
these reasons, we propose a finding that the proposed project will have
a negligible impact on the SBS stock of polar bears.
[[Page 9900]]
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 closure, reclamation, and remediation activities in the
project area will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of polar bears for taking for subsistence uses during the
proposed timeframe.
While polar bears represent a small portion, in terms of the number
of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the Utqiagvik,
Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik communities, their harvest is important to Alaska
Natives. The project activities are in an established industrial area,
with the closest known common polar bear harvest locations greater than
10 miles (16.1 km) away. The BPAPC will be required to notify the
Village of Kaktovik and Village of Nuiqsut of the planned activities
and document any discussions of potential conflict. The BPAPC must make
reasonable efforts to ensure that activities do not interfere with
subsistence hunting and that adverse effects on the availability of
polar bears are minimized. Should such a concern be voiced, development
of Plans of Cooperation (POC), which must identify measures to minimize
any adverse effects, will be required. The POC will ensure that project
activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. This POC
must provide the procedures addressing how BPAPC 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 pad closure, remediation, and
reclamation. If there is evidence that these activities are affecting
the availability of polar bears for take for subsistence uses, we will
reevaluate our findings regarding permissible limits of take and the
measures required to ensure continued subsistence hunting
opportunities.
Least Practicable Adverse Impact
We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of mitigation
measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the specified
activities, the best available scientific information, and monitoring
data during Industry activities in the specified geographic region. We
propose a finding that the mitigation measures included within BPAPC's
Request will ensure least practicable adverse impacts on polar bears,
their habitat, and the subsistence harvest of polar bears (ERM Alaska,
Inc. 2022b).
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, use of handheld and vehicle-mounted IR
devices to scan areas of snow accumulation weekly, 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. In early conversations with the Service
prior to the submittal of their Request, BPAPC committed to complete
summer reclamation activities prior to mid-July to avoid the increase
in polar bears along the coast in late July and August. These measures
are outlined in a polar bear interaction plan that was developed in
coordination with the Service and is part of BPAPC's request for this
IHA. Based on the information we currently have regarding den
disturbance and temporal constraints, we concluded that the mitigation
measures outlined in BPAPC's Request (ASTAC 2021) and incorporated into
this authorization will minimize impacts from the specified activities
to the extent practicable.
A number of additional mitigation measures were considered but
determined to be not practicable. These measures are listed below:
Spatial and temporal restrictions on surface activity--
Some spatial and temporal restrictions of operations were included in
BPAPC'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--Requiring a 1-mile buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat is not practicable as most of the planned transit routes and
existing and temporary infrastructure used by BPAPC 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.
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, no mitigative benefit
would be realized by their establishment.
Requirement of third-party neutral marine mammal
observers--Due to the limited size of the specified activities, it is
not practicable to hire third-party marine mammal observers. Additional
crew may require additional transit vehicles, which could increase
disturbance.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance
with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily concluded
that authorizing the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by Level
B harassment of up to three individuals from the SBS stock of polar
bears 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 Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all
Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or
endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Prior to issuance of a Final IHA, the Service will
complete intra-Service consultation under section 7 of the ESA on our
proposed issuance of an IHA. These evaluations and findings will be
made available on the Service's website at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/biological-opinion.
Government-to-Government Consultation
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a
Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We are also required to
consult with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations
in certain circumstances. We seek their full and meaningful
participation in
[[Page 9901]]
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;
see 87 FR 66255, November 3, 2022);
(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000);
(4) Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5,
1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), 3342 (October
21, 2016), and 3403 (November 15, 2021) as well as Director's Order 227
(September 8, 2022);
(5) The Alaska Government-to-Government Policy (a departmental
memorandum issued January 18, 2001); and
(6) the Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with
Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed IHA on federally
recognized Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA Corporations. The Service has
determined that authorizing the Level B harassment of up to three polar
bears from BPAPC's specified activities would not have any Tribal
implications or ANCSA Corporation implications and, therefore,
Government-to-Government consultation or Government-to-ANCSA
Corporation consultation is not necessary. However, we invite continued
discussion, either about the project and its impacts or about our
coordination and information exchange throughout the IHA/POC public
comment process.
Proposed Authorization
We propose to authorize the nonlethal, incidental take by Level B
harassment of three individuals from the SBS stock of polar bears.
Authorized take will be limited to disruption of behavioral patterns
that may be caused by the closure, remediation, and rehabilitation of
the Foggy Island State No. 1 pad, and support activities conducted by
BP America Production Company (BPAPC) in the Prudhoe Bay Area of the
North Slope of Alaska, from finalization of this IHA through December
14, 2023. 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 the IHA for BPAPC
1. Activities must be conducted in the manner described in the
revised Request dated September 26, 2022, for an IHA and in accordance
with all applicable conditions and mitigation measures. The taking of
polar bears whenever the required conditions, mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting measures are not fully implemented as required by the IHA
is prohibited. Failure to follow the measures specified both in the
revised Request and within this proposed authorization may result in
the modification, suspension, or revocation of the IHA.
2. If project activities cause unauthorized take (i.e., take of
more than three polar bears from the SBS stock, a form of take other
than Level B harassment, or take of one or more polar bears through
methods not described in the IHA), BPAPC 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 vessel operators
must receive a copy of this IHA and maintain access to it for reference
at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be
fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the
IHA at all times during project work.
4. This IHA will apply to activities associated with the proposed
project as described in this document and in BPAPC's revised Request.
Changes to the proposed project without prior authorization may
invalidate the IHA.
5. The BPAPC's revised Request is approved and fully incorporated
into this IHA unless exceptions are specifically noted herein. The
revised Request includes:
i. The BPAPC's original Request for an IHA, dated September 1,
2022, which includes BPAPC's Polar Bear Interaction Plan and geospatial
files;
ii. The BPAPC's response to request for further information from
the Service, dated September 27, 2022; and
iii. The BPAPC's revised Request for an IHA, dated September 26,
2022.
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 BPAPC's authority,
including all contractors and subcontractors.
The BPAPC must implement the following policies and procedures to
avoid interactions and minimize to the greatest extent practicable any
adverse impacts on polar bears, their habitat, and the availability of
these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
B. General Avoidance Measures
1. The BPAPC 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. The BPAPC must provide all operators with polar bear
awareness training prior to their participation in project activities.
3. A Service-approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction
plan must be on file with the Service Marine Mammals 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.
The BPAPC 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.
4. Mitigation measures for winter activities. The BPAPC must
undertake the following activities to limit disturbance around known
polar bear dens:
i. The BPAPC must obtain record of two aerial infrared (AIR)
surveys of all denning habitat located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of
specified activities in an attempt to identify maternal polar bear
dens. The first survey obtained must have occurred between December 1,
[[Page 9902]]
2022, and December 25, 2022, and the second survey obtained must have
occurred between December 15, 2022, and January 10, 2023, with at least
24 hours occurring between the completion of the first survey and the
beginning of the second survey.
ii. Handheld infrared surveys must be performed weekly for dens
throughout the duration of the Project along the snow push piles around
the Foggy Island Bay State No. 1 pad and snow drifts greater than 4.9
feet (1.5 meters [m]) in height along the ice road.
iii. All observed or suspected polar bear dens must be reported to
the Service prior to the initiation of activities.
iv. If a suspected den site is located, BPAPC will immediately
consult with the Service to analyze the data and determine if
additional surveys or mitigation measures are required. The Service
will determine whether the suspected den is to be treated as a putative
den for the purposes of this IHA.
v. Operators must observe a 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion
zone around all putative polar bear dens during the denning season
(November-April, or until the female and cubs leave the areas). Should
a suspected den be discovered within 1 mile of activities, work must
cease, and the Service contacted for guidance. The Service will
evaluate these instances on a case-by-case basis to determine the
appropriate action. Potential actions may range from cessation or
modification of work to conducting additional monitoring, and the
holder of the authorization must comply with any additional measures
specified.
vi. In determining the denning habitat that requires surveys, use
the den habitat map developed by the USGS. A map of potential coastal
polar bear denning habitat can be found at: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/asc/science/polar-bear-maternal-denning?qt-science_center_objects=4#qt-science_center_objects.
5. Mitigation measures for in-water activities.
i. Prior to and during airboat use, BPAPC must assess the access
route for polar bears. While workers are transiting in the airboat, a
designated occupant must be assigned to scan the surrounding area for
marine mammals.
ii. Vessels must always maintain the maximum distance possible from
polar bears. Vessels should never approach within an 805-m (0.5-mi)
radius of polar bears unless it is an emergency.
iii. Vessels should take all practical measures (i.e., reduce
speed, change course heading) to avoid polar bears in the water.
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 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, BPAPC 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
BPAPC must conduct its activities in a manner that, to the greatest
extent practicable, minimizes adverse impacts on the availability of
polar bears for subsistence uses.
1. The BPAPC will be required to develop a Service-approved POC if,
through community consultation, concerns are raised regarding impacts
to subsistence harvest or Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
2. If required, BPAPC will implement the Service-approved POC.
3. Prior to conducting the work, BPAPC will take the following
steps to reduce potential effects on subsistence harvest of polar
bears:
i. Avoid work in areas of known polar bear subsistence harvest;
ii. Notify the Native Village of Kaktovik and the Native Village of
Nuiqsit of the proposed project activities;
iii. Work to resolve any concerns of potentially affected Alaska
Native Tribal organizations and corporations regarding the project's
effects on subsistence hunting of polar bears;
iv. If any unresolved or ongoing concerns of potentially affected
Alaska Native Tribal organizations and corporations remain, modify the
POC in consultation with the Service and subsistence stakeholders to
address these concerns; and
v. Implement Service-required mitigation measures that will reduce
impacts to subsistence users and their resources.
E. Reporting Requirements
The BPAPC must report the results of monitoring to the Service
Marine Mammals Management office via email at: fw7_mmm_reports@fws.gov.
1. In-season monitoring reports.
2. Activity progress reports. The BPAPC must: Notify the Service at
least 48 hours prior to the onset of activities;
3. Polar bear observation reports. The BPAPC must report, within 48
hours, all observations of polar bears and potential polar bear dens
during any project activities. Upon request, monitoring report data
must be provided in a common electronic format (to be specified by the
Service). Information in the observation report must include, but need
not be limited to:
i. Date and time of each observation;
ii. Locations of the observer and polar bears (GPS coordinates if
possible);
iii. Number of polar bears;
iv. Sex and age class--adult, subadult, cub (if known);
v. Observer name and contact information;
vi. Weather, visibility, and if at sea, sea state, and sea-ice
conditions at the time of observation;
vii. Estimated closest distance of polar bears from personnel and
facilities;
viii. Type of work being conducted at time of sighting;
ix. Possible attractants present;
x. Polar bear behavior--initial behavior when first observed (e.g.,
walking, swimming, resting, etc.);
xi. Potential reaction--behavior of polar bear potentially in
response to presence or activity of personnel and equipment;
xii. Description of the encounter;
xiii. Duration of the encounter; and
xiv. Mitigation actions taken.
4. Human polar bear interaction reports. The BPAPC must report all
human polar bear interaction incidents immediately, and not later than
48 hours after the incident. Human polar bear interactions include:
i. Any situation in which there is a possibility for unauthorized
take. For
[[Page 9903]]
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 all information
specified for an observation report in paragraphs (3)(i)-(xiv) of this
section E, a complete detailed description of the incident, and any
other actions taken.
ii. Injured, dead, or distressed polar bears that are clearly not
associated with project activities (e.g., animals found outside the
project area, previously wounded animals, or carcasses with moderate to
advanced decomposition or scavenger damage) must also be reported to
the Service immediately, and not later than 48 hours after discovery.
Photographs, video, location information, or any other available
documentation must be included.
5. 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.
Peter Fasbender,
Assistant Regional Director for Fisheries and Ecological Services,
Alaska Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-03185 Filed 2-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P