Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities, 47010-47054 [2011-19296]
Download as PDF
47010
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E.
Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Perham, Office of Marine
Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone: 907–
786–3810 or 1–800–362–5148, or e-mail:
craig_perham@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098;
71490–1351–0000–L5–FY11]
RIN 1018–AX32
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take
During Specified Activities
AGENCY:
Immediate Promulgation
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Final rule.
ACTION:
The Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has developed regulations that
would authorize the nonlethal,
incidental, unintentional take of small
numbers of polar bears and Pacific
walruses during year-round oil and gas
industry (Industry) exploration,
development, and production
operations in the Beaufort Sea and
adjacent northern coast of Alaska.
Industry operations for the covered
period include types of activities similar
to those covered by the previous 5-year
Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations
that were effective from August 2, 2006,
through August 2, 2011. We find that
the total expected takings of polar bears
and Pacific walruses during oil and gas
industry exploration, development, and
production activities will have a
negligible impact on these species and
will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of these
species for subsistence use by Alaska
Natives. We base this finding on the
results of 17 years of data on the
encounters and interactions between
polar bears, Pacific walruses, and
Industry; recent studies of potential
effects of Industry on these species; oil
spill risk assessments; potential and
documented Industry impacts on these
species; and current information
regarding the natural history and status
of polar bears and Pacific walruses. This
rule is effective for 5 years from date of
issuance.
DATES: This rule is effective August 3,
2011, and remains effective through
August 3, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The final rule and
associated environmental assessment
(EA) are available for viewing at https://
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No, FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098.
Comments and materials received in
response to this action are available for
public inspection during normal
working hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at the Office of
Marine Mammals Management, U.S.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
we find that we have good cause to
make this rule effective less than 30
days after publication. Immediate
promulgation of the rule will ensure
that Industry implements mitigation
measures and monitoring programs in
the geographic region that reduce the
risk of lethal and nonlethal effects to
polar bears and Pacific walruses by
Industry activities.
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary
of the Interior (Secretary) through the
Director of the Service the authority to
allow the incidental, but not intentional,
taking of small numbers of marine
mammals, in response to requests by
U.S. citizens [as defined in 50 CFR
18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) in a
specified geographic region. According
to the MMPA, the Service (we) shall
allow this incidental taking if (1) We
make a finding that the total of such
taking for the 5-year regulatory period
will have no more than a negligible
impact on these species and will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of these species for
taking for subsistence use by Alaska
Natives, and (2) we issue regulations
that set forth (a) permissible methods of
taking, (b) means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the
species and their habitat and on the
availability of the species for
subsistence uses, and (c) requirements
for monitoring and reporting. If
regulations allowing such incidental
taking are issued, we issue Letters of
Authorization (LOA) to conduct
activities under the provisions of these
regulations when requested by citizens
of the United States.
The term ‘‘take,’’ as defined by the
MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture,
or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Harassment, as defined by the MMPA,
means ‘‘any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) Has the potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mammal stock in the wild’’ (the MMPA
calls this Level A harassment); ‘‘or (ii)
has the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering’’ (the MMPA calls
this Level B harassment).
The terms ‘‘small numbers,’’
‘‘negligible impact,’’ and ‘‘unmitigable
adverse impact’’ are defined in 50 CFR
18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small
takes of marine mammals incidental to
specified activities) as follows. ‘‘Small
numbers’’ is defined as ‘‘a portion of a
marine mammal species or stock whose
taking would have a negligible impact
on that species or stock.’’ It is necessary
to note that the Service’s analysis of
‘‘small numbers’’ complies with the
agency’s regulatory definition and is an
appropriate reflection of Congress’
intent. As was noted during the
development of this definition (48 FR
31220; July 7, 1983), Congress itself
recognized the ‘‘imprecision of the term
small numbers,’’ but was unable to offer
a more precise formulation because the
concept is not capable of being
expressed in absolute numerical limits.’’
See H.R. Report No. 97–228 at 19. Thus,
Congress itself focused on the
anticipated effects of the activity on the
species and stated that authorization
should be available to persons ‘‘whose
taking of marine mammals is infrequent,
unavoidable, or accidental.’’
‘‘Negligible impact’’ is ‘‘an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
‘‘Unmitigable adverse impact’’ means
‘‘an impact resulting from the specified
activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the
availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet
subsistence needs by (i) Causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid
hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing
subsistence users, or (iii) placing
physical barriers between the marine
mammals and the subsistence hunters;
and (2) that cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by other measures to increase
the availability of marine mammals to
allow subsistence needs to be met.’’
Industry conducts activities such as
oil and gas exploration, development,
and production in marine mammal
habitat that may result in the taking of
marine mammals. Although Industry is
under no legal requirement to obtain
incidental take authorization, since
1993, Industry has requested, and we
have issued, a series of regulations for
incidental take authorization for
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
conducting activities in areas of polar
bear and walrus habitat. Since the
inception of these incidental take
regulations (ITRs), polar bear/walrus
monitoring observations associated with
the regulations have recorded more than
2,000 polar bear observations associated
with Industry activities. The large
majority of reported encounters have
been passive observations of bears
moving through the oil fields.
Monitoring of Industry activities
indicates that encounters with walruses
are insignificant, with only 18 walruses
recorded during the same period.
A detailed history of our past
regulations can be found in our most
recent regulation, published on August
2, 2006 (71 FR 43926). These past
regulations were published on:
• November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60402);
• August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42805);
• January 28, 1999 (64 FR 4328);
• February 3, 2000 (65 FR 5275);
• March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16828);
• November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66744);
and
• August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Summary of Current Request
In 2009, the Service received a
petition to promulgate a renewal of
regulations for nonlethal incidental take
of small numbers of walruses and polar
bears in the Beaufort Sea for a period of
5 years (2011–2016). The request was
submitted on April 22, 2009, by the
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
on behalf of its members and other
participating parties. The petition is
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
AOGA’s application indicates that
they request regulations that will be
applicable to any company conducting
oil and gas exploration, development,
and production activities as described
within the request. This includes
members of AOGA and other parties
planning to conduct oil and gas
operations in the geographic region.
Members of AOGA represented in the
petition include:
• Alyeska Pipeline Service Company;
• Anadarko Petroleum Corporation;
• BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.;
• Chevron USA, Inc.;
• Eni Petroleum;
• ExxonMobil Production Company;
• Flint Hills Resources, Inc.;
• Marathon Oil Company;
• Pacific Energy Resources Ltd.;
• Petro-Canada (Alaska) Inc.;
• Petro Star Inc.;
• Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska,
Inc.;
• Shell Exploration & Production
Company;
• Statoil Hydro;
• Tesoro Alaska Company; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
• XTO Energy, Inc.
Other participating parties include
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI),
CGG Veritas, Brooks Range Petroleum
Corporation (BRPC), and Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation (ASRC) Energy
Services. The activities and geographic
region specified in AOGA’s request, and
considered in these regulations, are
described in the ensuing sections titled
‘‘Description of Geographic Region’’ and
‘‘Description of Activities.’’
Prior to issuing regulations at 50 CFR
part 18, subpart J, in response to this
request, we must evaluate the level of
industrial activities, their associated
potential impacts to polar bears and
Pacific walruses, and their effects on the
availability of these species for
subsistence use. The information
provided by the petitioners indicates
that projected oil and gas activities over
this timeframe will encompass onshore
and offshore exploration, development,
and production activities. The
petitioners have also specifically
requested that these regulations be
issued for nonlethal take. Industry has
indicated that, through implementation
of the mitigation measures, it is
confident a lethal take will not occur.
The Service is tasked with analyzing the
impact that lawful oil and gas industry
activities will have on polar bears and
walruses during normal operating
procedures. In addition, the potential
for impact by the oil and gas industry
outside normal operating conditions
warrant an analysis of the risk of an oil
spill and its potential impact on polar
bears and walruses.
Description of Regulations
The regulations include: permissible
methods of nonlethal taking; measures
to ensure the least practicable adverse
impact on the species and the
availability of these species for
subsistence uses; and requirements for
monitoring and reporting. These
regulations do not authorize, or
‘‘permit,’’ the actual activities associated
with oil and gas exploration,
development, and production. Rather,
they authorize the nonlethal incidental,
unintentional take of small numbers of
polar bears and Pacific walruses
associated with those activities based on
standards set forth in the MMPA. The
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE),
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
are responsible for permitting activities
associated with oil and gas activities in
Federal waters and on Federal lands.
The State of Alaska is responsible for
permitting activities on State lands and
in State waters.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47011
Under these nonlethal incidental take
regulations, persons seeking taking
authorization for particular projects will
apply for an LOA to cover nonlethal
take associated with exploration,
development, or production activities
pursuant to the regulations. Each group
or individual conducting an oil and gas
industry-related activity within the area
covered by these regulations may
request an LOA. A separate LOA is
mandatory for each activity. We must
receive applications for LOAs at least 90
days before the activity is to begin.
Applicants must submit a plan to
monitor the effects of authorized
activities on polar bears and walruses.
Applicants must include in their LOA
request the timeframe of proposed
activities, the operating terms and
conditions, a polar bear encounter and
interaction plan, and a marine mammal
monitoring plan.
Applicants must also include a Plan
of Cooperation (POC) describing the
availability of these species for
subsistence use by Alaska Native
communities and how they may be
affected by Industry operations. The
purpose of the POC is to ensure that oil
and gas activities will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or the stock
for subsistence uses. The POC must
provide the procedures on how Industry
will work with the affected Native
communities, including a description of
the necessary actions that will be taken
to: (1) Avoid or minimize interference
with subsistence hunting of polar bears
and Pacific walruses; and (2) ensure
continued availability of the species for
subsistence use. The POC is further
described in ‘‘Effects of Oil and Gas
Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses
of Marine Mammals.’’
We will evaluate each request for an
LOA based on the specific activity and
specific location, and we may condition
the LOA depending on specific
circumstances for that activity and
location. For example, an LOA issued in
response to a request to conduct
activities in areas with known, active
bear dens or a history of polar bear
denning may be conditioned to require
one or more of the following: Forward
Looking Infrared (FLIR) imagery flights
to determine the location of active polar
bear dens; avoiding all denning activity
by 1 mile; intensified monitoring in a 1mile buffer around the den; or avoiding
the area during the denning period.
More information on applying for and
receiving an LOA can be found at 50
CFR 18.27(f).
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47012
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Description of Geographic Region
The geographic area covered by the
requested incidental take regulations
(hereafter referred to as the Beaufort Sea
Region) encompasses all Beaufort Sea
waters east of a north-south line through
Point Barrow (71°23′29″ N, -156°28′30″
W, BGN 1944), and up to 200 miles
north of Point Barrow, including all
Alaska State waters and Outer
Continental Shelf waters, and east of
that line to the Canadian border. The
onshore region is the same north/south
line at Barrow, 25 miles inland and east
to the Canning River. The Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge is not included
in these regulations. The geographical
extent of these regulations is similar to
that in previous regulations (71 FR
43926; August 2, 2006), where the
offshore boundary is the Beaufort Sea
Planning area, approximately 200 miles
offshore.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Description of Activities
Activities covered in these regulations
include Industry exploration,
development, and production
operations of oil and gas reserves, as
well as environmental monitoring
associated with these activities, on the
northern coast of Alaska. Throughout
the 5 years that the future regulations
will be in place, the petitioners expect
that similar types of oil and gas
activities will occur at similar times of
the year as under the prior regulations.
Examples of future Industry activities
include the completion of the Alpine
Satellite Development and development
of Point Thomson, Oooguruk,
Nikaitchuq, and areas in the National
Petroleum Reserve—Alaska (NPR–A).
According to the petitioners, the
locations of these operations are
anticipated to be approximately equally
divided among the onshore and offshore
tracts presently under lease and to be
leased during the period under
consideration.
For the purpose of assessing possible
impacts, we anticipate, based on
information provided by the petitioners,
that these activities will occur equally
spaced over time and area for the
upcoming ice-covered and open-water
seasons. Due to the large number of
variables affecting Industry activities,
predicting exact dates and locations of
operation for the open-water and icecovered seasons is not possible at this
time. However, operators must provide
specific dates and locations of proposed
activities prior to receiving an LOA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Industry-Proposed Activities Considered
Under Incidental Take Regulations
Alaska’s North Slope encompasses an
area of 88,280 square miles and
currently contains 11 oil and gas field
units associated with Industry. These
include the Greater Prudhoe Bay, Duck
Island, Badami, Northstar, Kuparuk
River, Colville River, Oooguruk, Tuvaq,
Nikaitchuq, Milne Point, and Point
Thomson. These units encompass
exploration, development, and
production activities. In addition, some
of these fields include associated
satellite oilfields: Sag Delta North,
Eider, North Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne,
Niakuk, Niakuk-Ivashak, Aurora,
Midnight Sun, Borealis, West Beach,
Polaris, Orion, Tarn, Tabasco, Palm,
West Sak, Meltwater, Cascade, Schrader
Bluff, Sag River, and Alpine.
Exploration Activities
As with previous regulations,
exploration activities may occur
onshore or offshore and include:
geological surveys; geotechnical site
investigations; reflective seismic
exploration; vibrator seismic data
collection; airgun and water gun seismic
data collection; explosive seismic data
collection; vertical seismic profiles; subsea sediment sampling; construction
and use of drilling structures such as
caisson-retained islands, ice islands,
bottom-founded structures [steel drilling
caisson (SDC)], ice pads and ice roads;
oil spill prevention, response, and
cleanup; and site restoration and
remediation. Exploration activities
could also include the development of
staging facilities. The level of
exploration activities is expected to be
similar to the level during the past
regulatory periods, although exploration
projects may shift to different locations,
particularly the National Petroleum
Reserve—Alaska (NPR–A).
The location of new exploration
activities within the geographic region
of the rule will, in part, be determined
by the following State and Federal oil
and gas lease sales:
State of Alaska Lease Sales
In 1996, the State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
(ADNR), Oil and Gas Division, adopted
an ‘‘area wide’’ approach to leasing.
Under area-wide leasing, the State offers
all available State acreage not currently
under lease within each area annually.
The area of activity in this petition
includes the North Slope and Beaufort
Sea planning areas. Lease sale data are
available on the ADNR Web site at:
https://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/
index.htm. ndustry activities may occur
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
on State lease sales during the time
period of the requested action. North
Slope Area-wide lease sales are held
annually in October. As of August 2008,
there are 774 active leases on the North
Slope, encompassing 971,245 hectares
(2.4 million acres), and 224 active leases
in the State waters of the Beaufort Sea,
encompassing 249,000 hectares (615,296
acres). The sale on October 22, 2008,
resulted in the sale of 60 tracts for a
total of 86,765 hectares (214,400 acres).
Eight lease sales have been held to date.
As of July 2008, there are 38 active
leases in the Beaufort Sea area,
encompassing 38,333 hectares (94,724
acres). The sale on October 22, 2008,
resulted in the sale of 32 tracts for a
total of 40,145 hectares (99,200 acres).
Northwest and Northeast Planning
Areas of NPR–A
The BLM manages more than 9
million hectares (23 million acres) in
the NPR–A, including the Northwest
(3.5 million hectares, 8.8 million acres),
Northeast (1.8 hectares, 4.6 million
acres), and South (3.6 million hectares,
9 million acres) Planning Areas. The
area of activity in this petition includes
the Northwest and Northeast areas.
Oil and gas lease sales were held in
2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. The 2004
lease sale sold 123 tracts totaling
566,560 hectares (1.4 million acres); the
2006 sale sold 81 tracts covering
380,350 hectares (939,867 acres); the
2008 sale sold 23 tracts covering
106,013 hectares (261,964 acres); and
the 2010 sale sold 5 tracts covering
11.511 hectares (28,444 acres). From
2000 to 2008, 25 exploratory wells were
drilled in the Northeast and Northwest
planning areas of the NPR–A. Current
operator/ownership information is
available on the BLM NPR–A Web site
at https://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/
energy/oil_gas/npra.html. Exploration
activities were conducted on the FEX LP
company leases in the Northwest
Planning Area between 2006–2008.
Exploration may continue where new
areas have been selected. New project
elements included exploration drilling
at nine new ice drill pad locations (in
the Uugaq, Aklaq, Aklaqyaaq, and
Amaguq prospects), 99 km (62 mi) of
new access corridor, and 34 new water
sources.
In the Northeast Planning Area, CPAI
applied for permits to begin a 5-year
(2006–2011) winter drilling program at
11 sites (Noatak, Nugget, Cassin and
Spark DD prospects), including 177 km
(110 mi) of new right-of-way corridors
and 10 new water supply lakes. CPAI is
planning to continue developing its
program in the Northeast Planning Area
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
throughout the duration of the requested
regulations.
Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sales
The BOEMRE manages the Alaska
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region
encompassing 242 million hectares (600
million acres). In February 2003, the
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
(now known as the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement or BOEMRE) issued the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for three lease sales planned for
the Beaufort Sea Planning Area: Sale
186, 195, and 202. Sale 186 was held in
2003, resulting in the leasing of 34 tracts
encompassing 73,576 hectares (181,810
acres). Sale 195 was held in 2005,
resulting in the leasing of 117 tracts
encompassing 245,760 hectares (607,285
acres). Sale 202 was held in 2007,
resulting in the leasing of 90 tracts
covering 198,580 hectares (490,700
acres). Leasing information from
BOEMRE is located at https://
www.boemre.gov/alaska/lease/
lease.htm. The next lease sale, Lease
Sale 217, is planned for 2011. BOEMRE
has begun preparing the multiple-sale
EIS for these areas. The Draft EIS was
released in November 2008 and is
located at https://www.BOEMRE.gov/
alaska/ref/EIS%20EA/
ArcticMultiSale_209/_DEIS.htm. While
the disposition of the leases is highly
speculative at this time, it is probable
that at least some seismic exploration
and possibly some exploratory drilling
will take place during the 5-year period
of the regulations.
Exploratory drilling for oil occurs
onshore, in inland areas, or in the
offshore environment. Exploratory
drilling and associated support
activities and features may include:
transportation to site; setup and
relocation of up to 100-person camps
and support camps (lights, generators,
snow removal, water plants, wastewater
plants, dining halls, sleeping quarters,
mechanical shops, fuel storage, landing
strips, aircraft support, health and safety
facilities, data recording facilities and
communication equipment); building
gravel pads; building gravel islands with
sandbag and concrete block protection;
ice islands; ice roads; gravel hauling;
gravel mine sites; road building;
pipelines; electrical lines; water lines;
road maintenance; buildings and
facilities; operating heavy equipment;
digging trenches; burying and covering
pipelines; sea lift; water flood; security
operations; dredging; moving floating
drill units; helicopter support; and drill
ships such as the Steel Drilling Caisson
(SDC), CANMAR Explorer III, and the
Kulluk.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
During the regulatory period,
exploration activities are anticipated to
occur in the offshore environment and
continue in the current oil field units,
including those projects identified by
Industry below.
Point Thomson
The Point Thomson reservoir is
approximately 32 km (20 mi) east of the
Badami field. In January 2009, ADNR
issued a conditional interim decision
that allows for the drilling of two wells
by 2010 and the commencement of
production by 2014. Following startup
of production from Point Thomson in
2014, field development is expected to
include additional liquids production
and sale of gas. Field development will
require additional wells, field facilities,
and pipelines. The timing and nature of
additional facilities and expansions will
depend upon initial field performance
and timing of an Alaska gas pipeline to
export gas off the North Slope.
Ataruq (Two Bits)
The Ataruq project is permitted for
construction but, not completely
permitted for operation. This KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Corporation project
is located about 7.2 km (4.5 mi)
northwest of the Kuparuk River Unit
(KRU) Drill Site 2M. The area consists
of two onshore prospects and covers
about 2,071 hectares (5,120 acres). It
includes a 6.4-km (4-mi) gravel road and
a single gravel pad with production
facilities and up to 20 wells in
secondary containment modules. The
processed fluids will be transported to
DS 2M via a pipe-in-a-pipe buried line
within the access road. After drilling,
the facility will be normally unmanned.
Shell Offshore Exploration Activities
Shell anticipates conducting an
exploration drilling program, called the
Suvulliq Project, on BOEMRE Alaska
OCS leases located in the Beaufort Sea
during the arctic drilling seasons of
2011–2016. Presently, the arctic drilling
seasons are generally considered to be
from July through October in the
Beaufort Sea. Shell will use a floating
drilling vessel complemented by ice
management and oil spill response
(OSR) barges and/or vessels to
accomplish exploration and/or
delineation drilling during each arctic
drilling season. An open water program
in support of the development of Shell’s
Beaufort Sea leases will involve a site
clearance and shallow hazards study as
well. A detailed description of an
offshore drilling activity of this nature
can be found at: https://alaska.fws.gov/
fisheries/mmm/itr.htm, under ‘‘LOA
Applications for Public viewing.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47013
ION Seismic Activity
ION is planning an open-water
seismic program in the late open-water
and into the ice-covered season, which
will consist of an estimated 3,000 miles
of 2D seismic line acquisition and site
clearance surveys in the eastern
Beaufort Sea. The open-water seismic
program will consist of two vessels, one
active in seismic acquisition and the
second providing logistical support and
ice breaking capabilities. An offshore
open-water seismic program is proposed
to occur between September through
October 2011.
Development Activities
Development activities associated
with oil and gas Industry operations
include: road construction; pipeline
construction; waterline construction;
gravel pad construction; camp
construction (personnel, dining,
lodging, maintenance, water production,
wastewater treatment); transportation
(automobile, airplane, and helicopter);
runway construction; installation of
electronic equipment; well drilling; drill
rig transport; personnel support; and
demobilization, restoration, and
remediation.
Alpine Satellites Development
CPAI has proposed to develop oil and
gas from five satellites. Two proposed
satellites known as CD–3 (CD North
during exploration) and CD–4 (CD
South) are in the Colville Delta. The
CD–3 drill site is located north of CD–
1 (Alpine facility) and is a roadless
development accessed by a gravel
airstrip or ice road in winter. The CD–
4 drill site is connected to the main
production pad via a gravel road.
Production startup of CD–3 and CD–4
drill sites occurred in late summer 2006.
Three other proposed satellites known
as CD–5, CD–6, and CD–7 (Alpine West,
Lookout, and Spark, respectively,
during exploration) are in the NPR–A.
Construction of the three NPR–A drill
sites is anticipated during the ITR
period. These remaining three drill sites
are proposed to be connected to CD–2
via road and bridge over the Niglilq
Channel from CD–5. The other two drill
sites are planned to be connected to CD–
via road; however, the permitting for
these scenarios has not been completed.
Development of five drill sites is
planned by CPAI in the immediate
future in the Alpine development area
and could occur within the regulatory
period. Production for CD–5, CD–6, and
CD–7 are scheduled for 2015, 2016, and
2017, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47014
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Liberty
of the AGIA license. TransCanada
Corporation is currently in the planning
stages of developing the Alaska Pipeline
Project, which will move natural gas
from Alaska to North American markets.
The project is planned to stretch
approximately 2,760 km (1,715 mi) from
Prudhoe Bay to the British Columbia/
Alberta border near Boundary Lake. The
Alaska Pipeline Project also includes a
gas treatment plant in the Prudhoe Bay
area with associated construction
activities including dock/causeway
improvements and barge channel
dredging.
BPXA is currently in the process of
developing the Liberty field, where the
use of ultra extended-reach drilling
(uERD) technology will access an
offshore reservoir from existing onshore
facilities. The Liberty reservoir is
located in Federal waters in Foggy
Island Bay about 13 km (8 mi) east of
the Endicott Satellite Drilling Island
(SDI). Liberty prospect is located
approximately 5.5 miles offshore in 20
ft of water. The development of Liberty
was first proposed in 1998 when BPXA
submitted a plan to BOEMRE (then
MMS) for a production facility on an
artificial island in Foggy Island Bay. In
2002, BPXA put the project on hold to
review project design and economics
after the completion of BPXA’s
Northstar project. In August 2005, BPXA
moved the project onshore to take
advantage of advances in extended
reach drilling. Liberty wells will extend
as much as 8 miles offshore. Drilling of
the initial Liberty development well and
first oil production is planned to occur
during the 5-year period of this rule.
North Shore Development
Brooks Range Petroleum Company
(BRPC) is proposing the North Shore
Development Project to produce oil
from several relatively small, isolated
hydrocarbon accumulations on the
North Slope. The fields are close to
existing Prudhoe Bay infrastructure,
where production will concentrate on
the Ivishak and Sag River sands
prospects. Horizontal drilling
technology and long-reach wells will be
used to maximize production while
minimizing surface impacts. BRPC
expects to recover between five and ten
million barrels of oil, and future
exploration success could increase the
reserves.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Potential Gas Pipeline
One company is currently proposing
to construct a natural gas pipeline that
would transport natural gas from the
North Slope to North American markets.
Only a small portion (40 km [25 mi]
inland) of a pipeline would occur
within the specified area of activity
covered under this petition. Initial
stages of the gas pipeline development,
such as environmental studies and route
selection, could occur during the 5-year
period of the requested action.
The project is proposed by the
TransCanada Corporation. The Alaska
Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) was
passed into law by the State of Alaska
in May 2007. TransCanada Corporation
was selected by the State of Alaska in
August 2008 as the exclusive recipient
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Nikaitchuq Unit
The Nikaitchuq Unit is located near
Spy Island, north of Oliktok Point and
the Kuparuk River Unit, and northwest
of the Milne Point Unit. Former operator
Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corporation
drilled three exploratory wells on and
immediately adjacent to Spy Island, 4
miles north of Oliktok Point in the icecovered season of 2004–2005. The
current operator, Eni, is moving to
develop this site as a future production
area. Future drilling will be from a small
gravel island shoreward of the barrier
islands. Additional operations will
include approximately 13 miles of
underground pipeline connecting the
offshore sites to a mainland landfall and
onshore facilities pad near Oliktok
Point.
Production Activities
Existing North Slope production
operations extend from the oilfield units
of Alpine in the west to Point Thomson
and Badami in the east. Badami and
Alpine are developments without
permanent access roads; access is
available to these fields by airstrips,
barges, and seasonal ice roads. Oil
pipelines extend from these fields and
connect to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS). North Slope oilfield
developments include a series of major
fields and their associated satellite
fields. In some cases a new oilfield
discovery has been developed
completely using existing infrastructure.
Thus, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield unit
encompasses the Prudhoe Bay,
Lisburne, Niakuk, West Beach, North
Prudhoe Bay, Point McIntyre, Borealis,
Midnight Sun, Polaris, Aurora, and
Orion reservoirs, while the Kuparuk
oilfield development incorporates the
Kuparuk, West Sak, Tarn, Palm,
Tabasco, and Meltwater oilfields.
Production activities include:
personnel transportation (automobiles,
airplanes, helicopters, boats, rolligons,
cat trains, and snowmobiles); and unit
operations (building operations, oil
production, oil transport, restoration,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
remediation, and improvement of
oilfield operations). Production
activities are permanent, year-round
activities, whereas exploration and
development activities are usually
temporary and seasonal.
Only production units and facilities
operated by BP Exploration Alaska, Inc.
and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. have
been covered under previous incidental
take regulations (Greater Prudhoe Bay,
Endicott, Milne Point, Badami,
Northstar, Kuparuk River, and Alpine,
respectively). Now the Oooguruk field,
operated by Pioneer, is currently
producing as well.
Prudhoe Bay Unit
The Prudhoe Bay oilfield is the largest
oilfield by production in North America
and ranks among the 20 largest oilfields
ever discovered worldwide. More than
11 billion barrels have been produced
from a field originally estimated to have
25 billion barrels of oil in place. The
Prudhoe Bay field also contains an
estimated 26 trillion cubic ft of
recoverable natural gas. More than 1,100
wells are currently in operation in the
greater Prudhoe Bay oilfields, just over
900 of which are producing oil (others
are for gas or water injection).
The total development area in the
Prudhoe Bay Unit is approximately
2,785 hectares (6,883 acres). The Base
Operations Center on the western side
of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield can
accommodate 476 people, the nearby
Main Construction Camp can
accommodate up to 680 people, and the
Prudhoe Bay Operations Center on the
eastern side of the field houses up to
488 people. Additional contract or
construction personnel can be housed at
facilities in nearby Deadhorse or in
temporary camps placed on existing
gravel pads.
Kuparuk River Unit
The Kuparuk oilfield is the secondlargest producing oilfield in North
America. More than 2.6 billion barrels
of oil are expected to be produced from
this oilfield. The Greater Kuparuk Area
includes the satellite oilfields of Tarn,
Palm, Tabasco, West Sak, and
Meltwater. These satellite fields have
been developed using existing facilities.
To date, nearly 900 wells have been
drilled in the Greater Kuparuk Area.
The total development area in the
Greater Kuparuk Area is approximately
603 hectares (1,508 acres), including
167 km (104 mi) of gravel roads, 231 km
(144 mi) of pipelines, 6 gravel mine
sites, and over 50 gravel pads.
The Kuparuk Operations Center and
Kuparuk Construction Camp are able to
accommodate up to 1,200 people. The
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Kuparuk Industrial Center is primarily
used for personnel overflow during the
winter in years with a large amount of
construction.
Greater Point McIntyre
The Greater Point McIntyre Area
encompasses the Point McIntyre field
and nearby satellite fields of West
Beach, North Prudhoe Bay, Niakuk, and
Western Niakuk. The Point McIntyre
area is located 11.3 km (7 mi) north of
Prudhoe Bay. It was discovered in 1988
and came online in 1993. BPXA
produces the Point McIntyre area from
two drill site gravel pads. The field’s
production peaked in 1996 at 170,000
barrels per day, whereas in 2006
production averaged 21,000 barrels per
day with just over 100 wells in
operation. Cumulative oil production as
of December 31, 2006, was 738 million
barrels of oil equivalent.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Milne Point
Located approximately 56 km (35 mi)
northwest of Prudhoe Bay, the Milne
Point oilfield was discovered in 1969
and began production in 1985. The field
consists of more than 220 wells drilled
from 12 gravel pads. Milne Point
produces from three main fields:
Kuparuk, Schrader Bluff, and Sag River.
Cumulative oil production as of
December 31, 2006, was 248 million
barrels of oil equivalent. The total area
of Milne Point and its satellites is 94.4
hectares (236 acres) of tundra, including
31 km (19 mi) of gravel roads, 64 km (40
mi) of pipelines, and one gravel mine
site. The Milne Point Operations Center
has accommodations for up to 300
people. It is estimated that the Ugnu
reservoir contains roughly 20 billion
barrels of heavy oil in place. BPXA’s
reservoir scientists and engineers
conservatively estimate that roughly 10
percent of that resource, or 2 billion
barrels, could be recoverable. Currently,
cold heavy oil production with sand
(CHOPS) technology is being tested at
Milne South Pad. CHOPS is part of a
multiyear technology testing and
research program initiated at Milne
Point in 2007.
Endicott
The Endicott oilfield is located
approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast
of Prudhoe Bay. It is the first
continuously producing offshore field in
the U.S. arctic. The Endicott oilfield was
developed from two manmade gravel
islands connected to the mainland by a
gravel causeway. The operations center
and processing facilities are located on
the 18-hectare (45-acre) Main
Production Island. Approximately 80
wells have been drilled to develop the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
field. Two satellite fields drilled from
Endicott’s Main Production Island
access oil from the Ivishak formation:
Eider produces about 110 barrels per
day, and Sag Delta North produces
about 117 barrels per day. The total area
of Endicott development is 156.8
hectares (392 acres) of land with 25 km
(15 mi) of roads, 47 km (29 mi) of
pipelines, and one gravel mine site.
Approximately 100 people are housed at
the Endicott Operations Center.
Badami
Production began from the Badami
oilfield in 1998, but has not been
continuous. The Badami field is located
approximately 56 km (35 mi) east of
Prudhoe Bay and is currently the most
easterly oilfield development on the
North Slope. The Badami development
area is approximately 34 hectares (85
acres) of tundra including 7 km (4.5 mi)
of gravel roads, 56 km (35 mi) of
pipeline, one gravel mine site, and two
gravel pads with a total of eight wells.
There is no permanent road connection
from Badami to Prudhoe Bay. The
pipeline connecting the Badami oilfield
to the common carrier pipeline system
at Endicott was built from an ice road.
The cumulative production is five
million barrels of oil equivalent. This
field is currently in ‘‘warm storage’’
status, i.e., site personnel are minimized
and the facility is maintained at a
minimal level. Additionally, it currently
is not producing oil reserves at this
time. BPXA recently entered into an
agreement with Savant LLC; under this
agreement Savant will drill an
exploration well in the winter of 2009
and potentially add an additional well
in 2010. Depending on the outcome of
these drilling programs, Badami could
resume production.
Alpine
Discovered in 1996, the Alpine
oilfield began production in November
2000. Alpine is the westernmost oilfield
on the North Slope, located 50 km (31
mi) west of the Kuparuk oilfield and 14
km (9 mi) northeast of the village of
Nuiqsut. Although the Alpine reservoir
covers 50,264 hectares (124,204 acres),
it has been developed from 65.9
hectares (162.92 acres) of pads and
associated roads. Alpine features a
combined production pad/drill site and
three additional drill sites with an
estimated 172 wells. There is no
permanent road connecting Alpine with
the Kuparuk oilfield; small aircraft are
used to provide supplies and crew
changeovers. Major resupply activities
occur in the winter, using the ice road
that is constructed annually between the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47015
two fields. The Alpine base camp can
house approximately 540 employees.
Northstar
The Northstar oilfield was discovered
in 1983 and developed by BPXA in
1995. The offshore oilfield is located 6
km (4 mi) northwest of the Point
McIntyre field and 10 km (6 mi) from
Prudhoe Bay in about 39 feet of water.
The 15,360-hectare (38,400-acre)
reservoir has now been developed from
a 2-hectare (5-acre) artificial island.
Production from the Northstar reservoir
began in late 2001. The 2-hectare (5acre) island will eventually contain 19
producing wells, six gas injector wells,
and one solids injection well. A subsea
pipeline connects facilities to the
Prudhoe Bay oilfield. Access to
Northstar is via helicopter, hovercraft,
and boat.
Oooguruk Unit
The Oooguruk Unit is located
adjacent to and immediately northwest
of the Kuparuk River Unit in shallow
waters of the Beaufort Sea, near Thetis
Island. Unit production began in 2008.
Facilities include an offshore drill site
and onshore production facilities pad.
In addition, a subsea 5.7-mile flowline
transports produced fluids from the
offshore drill site to shore, where it
transitions to an aboveground flowline
supported on vertical support members
for 3.9 km (2.4 mi) to the onshore
facilities for approximately 3.3 hectares
(8.2 acres). The offshore drill site (2.4
hectares, 6 acres) is planned to support
48 wells drilled from the Nuiqsut and
Kuparuk reservoirs. The wells are
contained in well bay modules, with
capacity for an additional 12 wells, if
needed. Pioneer is additionally
proposing production facilities west of
KRU drill site 3S on State oil and gas
leases. The contemplated facilities
consist of two drill sites near the
Colville River delta mouth, a tie-in pad
adjacent to DS–3S, gravel roads, flow
lines, and power lines. Drilling of the
initial appraisal well is planned to start
in 2013, with first oil production as
early as 2015.
During the time period of the previous
ITRs (2006–2011), three development
projects were described as possibly
moving into the production phase.
Currently, only Oooguruk is producing.
The two other developments,
Nikaitchuq and the Alpine West
Development, have not begun to
produce oil to their fullest capacity.
Concurrently, there are two additional
developments that could be producing
oil during the regulatory period. They
are the Liberty and North Shore
developments.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47016
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Proposed production activities will
increase the total area of the Industrial
footprint by the addition of new
facilities, such as drill pads, pipelines,
and support facilities, in the geographic
region; however, oil production volume
is expected to continue to decrease
during this 5-year regulatory period,
despite new fields initiating production.
This is due to current producing fields
reducing output and new fields not
maintaining the loss of that output.
Current monitoring and mitigation
measures, described later, will be kept
in place.
Evaluation of the Nature and Level of
Activities
During the period covered by the
regulations, we anticipate the annual
level of activity at existing production
facilities, as well as levels of new
annual exploration and development
activities, will be similar to that which
occurred under the previous
regulations, although exploration and
development may shift to different
locations, and new production facilities
will add to the overall Industry
footprint. Additional onshore and
offshore production facilities are being
considered within the timeframe of
these regulations, potentially adding to
the total permanent activities in the
area. The progress is similar to prior
production schedules, but there is a
potential increase in the accumulation
of the industrial footprint, with an
increase mainly in onshore facilities.
Biological Information
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Pacific Walrus
The Pacific walrus (Odobenus
rosmarus divergens), is represented by a
single population of animals inhabiting
the shallow continental shelf waters of
the Bering and Chukchi seas. The
distribution of Pacific walruses varies
markedly with seasons. During the latewinter breeding season, walruses are
found in areas of the Bering Sea where
open leads (linear openings or cracks in
the sea ice), polynyas (areas of open sea
surrounded by sea ice), or areas of
broken pack ice occur. Significant
winter concentrations are normally
found in the Gulf of Anadyr, the St.
Lawrence Island Polynya, and in an area
south of Nunivak Island. In the spring
and early summer, most of the
population follows the retreating pack
ice northward into the Chukchi Sea;
however, several thousand animals,
primarily adult males, remain in the
Bering Sea, utilizing coastal haulouts
during the ice-free season. During the
summer months, walruses are widely
distributed across the shallow
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
continental shelf waters of the Chukchi
Sea. Significant summer concentrations
are normally found in the
unconsolidated pack ice west of Point
Barrow, and along the northern
coastline of Chukotka, Russia, in the
vicinity of Wrangell Island. Small herds
of walruses occasionally range east of
Point Barrow into the Beaufort Sea in
late summer. As the ice edge advances
southward in the fall, walruses reverse
their migration and re-group on the
Bering Sea pack ice.
Population Status
The size of the Pacific walrus
population has never been known with
certainty. Based on large sustained
harvests in the 18th and 19th centuries,
Fay (1957) speculated that the preexploitation population was represented
by a minimum of 200,000 animals.
Since that time, population size is
believed to have fluctuated markedly in
response to varying levels of human
exploitation. Large-scale commercial
harvests are believed to have reduced
the population to 50,000–100,000
animals in the mid-1950s (Fay et al.
1989). The population appears to have
increased rapidly in size during the
1960s and 1970s in response to harvest
regulations and reductions in hunting
pressure (Fay et al. 1989). Between 1975
and 1990, visual aerial surveys were
carried out by the United States and
Russia at 5-year intervals, producing
population estimates ranging from
201,039 to 290,000 walruses. In 2006,
U.S. and Russian researchers surveyed
walrus groups in the pack ice of the
Bering Sea using thermal imaging
systems to detect walruses hauled out
on sea ice and satellite transmitters to
account for walruses in the water. The
number of walruses within the surveyed
area was estimated at 129,000, with 95
percent confidence limits of 55,000 to
507,000 individuals. Previous aerial
survey results are highly variable and
not directly comparable among years
because of differences in survey
methods, timing of surveys, segments of
the population surveyed, and
incomplete coverage of areas where
walrus may have been present. Because
of such issues, existing abundance
estimates do not provide a basis for
determining trends in population size.
Changes in walrus population status
have also been investigated by
examining changes in biological
parameters over time. Based on
evidence of changes in abundance,
distribution, condition indices, and lifehistory parameters, Fay et al. (1989) and
Fay et al. (1997) concluded that the
Pacific walrus population increased
greatly in size during the 1960s and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1970s and postulated that the
population was approaching, or had
exceeded, the carrying capacity of its
environment by the early 1980s. Harvest
increased in the 1980s. Changes in the
size, composition, and productivity of
the sampled walrus harvest in the
Bering Strait Region of Alaska over this
timeframe are consistent with this
hypothesis (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006).
Harvest levels declined sharply in the
early 1990s, and increased reproductive
rates and earlier maturation in females
occurred, suggesting that densitydependent feedback mechanisms had
been relaxed and the population had
likely dropped below carrying capacity
(Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). However, it
is unknown whether density-dependent
changes in life-history parameters were
mediated by changes in population
abundance or changes in the carrying
capacity of the environment (GarlichMiller et al. 2006).
Habitat
Walruses rely on floating pack ice as
a substrate for resting and giving birth.
Walruses generally require ice
thicknesses of 50 cm (20 in) or more to
support their weight. Although walruses
can break through ice up to 20 cm (8 in)
thick, they usually occupy areas with
natural openings and are not found in
areas of extensive, unbroken ice (Fay
1982). Thus, their concentrations in
winter tend to be in areas of divergent
ice flow or along the margins of
persistent polynyas. Concentrations in
summer tend to be in areas of
unconsolidated pack ice, usually within
100 km (30 mi) of the leading edge of
the ice pack (Gilbert 1999). When
suitable pack ice is not available,
walruses haul out to rest on land.
Isolated sites, such as barrier islands,
points, and headlands, are most
frequently occupied. Social factors,
learned behavior, and proximity to their
prey base are also thought to influence
the location of haulout sites. Traditional
walrus haulout sites in the eastern
Chukchi Sea include Cape Thompson,
Cape Lisburne, and Icy Cape. In recent
years, the Cape Lisburne haulout site
has seen regular use in late summer.
Numerous haulouts also exist along the
northern coastline of Chukotka, and on
Wrangell and Herald islands, which are
considered important haul-out areas in
September, especially in years when the
pack ice retreats far to the north.
Although capable of diving to deeper
depths, walruses are generally found in
shallow waters of 100 m (300 ft) or less,
possibly because of higher productivity
of their benthic foods in shallower
water. They feed almost exclusively on
benthic invertebrates, although Native
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
hunters have also reported incidents of
walruses preying on seals. Prey
densities are thought to vary across the
continental shelf according to sediment
type and structure. Preferred feeding
areas are typically composed of
sediments of soft, fine sands. The
juxtaposition of ice over appropriate
depths for feeding is especially
important for females and their
dependent young that are not capable of
deep diving or long exposure in the
water. The mobility of the pack ice is
thought to help prevent walruses from
overexploiting their prey resource (Ray
et al. 2006). Foraging trips may last for
several days, during which time they
dive to the bottom nearly continuously.
Most foraging dives to the bottom last
between 5 and 10 minutes, with a
relatively short (1–2 minute) surface
interval. The intensive tilling of the sea
floor by foraging walruses is thought to
have significant influence on the
ecology of the Bering and Chukchi seas.
Foraging activity recycles large
quantities of nutrients from the sea floor
back into the water column, provides
food for scavenger organisms, and
contributes greatly to the diversity of the
benthic community.
Life History
Walruses are long-lived animals with
low rates of reproduction. Females
reach sexual maturity at 4–9 years of
age. Males become fertile at 5–7 years of
age; however, they are usually unable to
compete for mates until they reach full
physical maturity at 15–16 years of age.
Breeding occurs between January and
March in the pack ice of the Bering Sea.
Calves are usually born in late April or
May the following year during the
northward migration from the Bering
Sea to the Chukchi Sea. Calving areas in
the Chukchi Sea extend from the Bering
Strait to latitude 70 °N. (Fay et al. 1984).
Calves are capable of entering the water
shortly after birth, but tend to haul out
frequently until their swimming ability
and blubber layer are well developed.
Newborn calves are tended closely.
They accompany their mother from
birth and are usually not weaned for 2
years or more. Cows brood newborns to
aid in their thermoregulation (Fay and
Ray 1968) and carry them on their back
or under their flipper while in the water
(Gehnrich 1984). Females with
newborns often join together to form
large ‘‘nursery herds’’ (Burns 1970).
Summer distribution of females and
young walruses is closely tied to the
movements of the pack ice relative to
feeding areas. Females give birth to one
calf every two or more years. This
reproductive rate is much lower than
other pinniped species; however, some
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
walruses live to age 35–40 and remain
reproductively active until relatively
late in life.
Walruses are extremely social and
gregarious animals. They tend to travel
in groups and haul out onto ice or land
in groups. Walruses spend
approximately one-third of their time
hauled out onto land or ice. Hauled-out
walruses tend to lie in close physical
contact with each other. Youngsters
often lie on top of the adults. The size
of the hauled out groups can range from
a few animals up to several thousand
individuals.
Mortality
Polar bears are known to prey on
walrus calves, and killer whales
(Orcinus orca) have been known to take
all age classes of walruses (Frost et al.
1992, Melnikov and Zagrebin 2005).
Predation levels are thought to be
highest near terrestrial haulout sites
where large aggregations of walruses can
be found; however, few observations
exist for off-shore environs.
Pacific walruses have been hunted by
coastal Natives in Alaska and Chukotka
for thousands of years. Exploitation of
the Pacific walrus population by
Europeans has also occurred in varying
degrees since first contact. Presently,
walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka
is restricted to meet the subsistence
needs of aboriginal peoples. The
Service, in partnership with the Eskimo
Walrus Commission (EWC) and the
Association of Traditional Marine
Mammal Hunters of Chukotka,
administered subsistence harvest
monitoring programs in Alaska and
Chukotka in 2000–2005. Harvest
mortality over this timeframe averaged
5,458 walruses per year. This mortality
estimate includes corrections for underreported harvest and struck and lost
animals.
Intra-specific trauma is also a known
source of injury and mortality.
Disturbance events can cause walruses
to stampede into the water and have
been known to result in injuries and
mortalities. The risk of stampede-related
injuries increases with the number of
animals hauled out. Calves and young
animals at the perimeter of these herds
are particularly vulnerable to trampling
injuries.
Distribution and Abundance of Pacific
Walruses in the Beaufort Sea
The distribution of Pacific walruses is
thought to be influenced primarily by
the extent of the seasonal pack ice. In
May and June, most of the Pacific
walrus population migrates through the
Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea.
Walruses tend to migrate into the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47017
Chukchi Sea along lead systems that
develop along the northwest coast of
Alaska. Walruses are expected to be
closely associated with the southern
edge of the seasonal pack ice during the
open water season. By July, large groups
of walruses, up to several thousand
animals, can be found along the edge of
the pack ice between Icy Cape and Point
Barrow. During August, the edge of the
pack ice generally retreats northward to
about 71 °N, but in light ice years, the
ice edge can retreat beyond 76 °N. The
sea ice normally reaches its minimum
(northern) extent in September. In years
when the sea ice retreats beyond the
relatively shallow continental shelf
waters of the Chukchi Sea, some
animals migrate west towards Chukotka,
while others have been observed
hauling out along the shoreline between
Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne. In
recent years, coastal haulouts in
Chukotka have seen regular and
persistent use in the fall. Russian
biologists attribute the increased use of
these coastal haulouts to diminishing
sea ice habitat. A similar event was
recorded along the Alaskan coastline in
August–September 2007, 2009, and
2010, when several thousand animals
were reported along the Chukchi Sea
coast between Barrow and Cape
Lisburne. The pack ice usually advances
rapidly southward in October, and most
walruses are thought to have moved into
the Bering Sea by mid- to lateNovember.
Although most walruses remain in the
Chukchi Sea throughout the summer
months, small numbers of animals
occasionally range into the Beaufort Sea
in late summer. A total of 18 walrus
sightings has been reported as a result
of Industry monitoring efforts over the
past 20 years (Kalxdorff and Bridges
2003, USFWS unpubl. data). Two
sightings occurred in 1996; one
involved a single animal observed from
a seismic vessel near Point Barrow, and
a second animal was sighted during an
aerial survey approximately 5 miles
northwest of Howe Island. In 1997,
another single animal was sighted
during an aerial survey approximately
20 miles north of Pingok Island. In 1998,
a dead walrus was observed on Pingok
Island being scavenged by polar bears.
One walrus was observed hauled out
near the SDC at McCovey in 2002. In
2004, one walrus was observed 50 m
(164 ft) from the Saltwater Treatment
Plant, on West Dock. In addition, walrus
have been observed on the armor of
Northstar Island three times since 2001;
in 2004, three walrus were observed on
the armor in two separate instances.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47018
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Between 2005 and 2009 additional
walruses were recorded.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Climate Change
Analyses of long-term environmental
data sets indicate that substantial
reductions in both the extent and
thickness of the arctic sea-ice cover have
occurred over the past 40 years. Record
minimum sea ice extent was recorded in
2002, 2005, and again in 2007; sea-ice
cover in 2003 and 2004 was also
substantially below the 20-year mean.
Walruses rely on suitable sea ice as a
substrate for resting between foraging
bouts, calving, molting, isolation from
predators, and protection from storm
events. The juxtaposition of sea ice over
shallow-shelf habitat suitable for
benthic feeding is important to
walruses. Recent trends in the Chukchi
Sea have resulted in seasonal sea-ice
retreat off the continental shelf and over
deep Arctic Ocean waters, presenting
significant adaptive challenges to
walruses in the region. Reasonably
foreseeable impacts to walruses as a
result of diminishing sea ice cover
include: shifts in range and abundance,
such as hauling out on land and
potential movements into the Beaufort
Sea; increased vulnerability to predation
and disturbance; declines in prey
species; increased mortality rates
resulting from storm events; and
premature separation of females and
dependent calves. Secondary effects on
animal health and condition resulting
from reductions in suitable foraging
habitat may also influence survivorship
and productivity. Future studies
investigating walrus distributions,
population status and trends, and
habitat use patterns are important for
responding to walrus conservation and
management issues associated with
environmental and habitat changes.
Polar Bear
The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was
listed as threatened, range-wide, under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on
May 15, 2008, due to loss of sea ice
habitat caused by climate change (73 FR
28212). The Service published a final
special rule under section 4(d) of the
ESA for the polar bear on December 16,
2008 (73 FR 76249), which provides for
measures that are necessary and
advisable for the conservation of polar
bears. This means that this special 4(d)
rule: (a) In most instances, adopts the
conservation regulatory requirements of
the MMPA and the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) for the polar bear as the
appropriate regulatory provisions for the
polar bear; (b) provides that incidental,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
nonlethal take of polar bears resulting
from activities outside the bear’s current
range is not prohibited under the ESA;
(c) clarifies that the special rule does not
alter the Section 7 consultation
requirements of the ESA; and (d) applies
the standard ESA protections for
threatened species when an activity is
not covered by an MMPA or CITES
authorization or exemption.
Polar bears occur throughout the
arctic. In Alaska, they have been
observed as far south in the eastern
Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island and
the Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971).
However, they are most commonly
found within 180 miles of the Alaskan
coast of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas,
from the Bering Strait to the Canadian
border. Two stocks occur in Alaska: (1)
The Chukchi-Bering seas stock (CS); and
(2) the Southern Beaufort Sea stock
(SBS). A summary of the CS and SBS
polar bear stocks are described below. A
detailed description of the CS and SBS
polar bear stocks can be found in the
‘‘Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar
Bear (Ursus maritimus)’’ (https://
alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/
polarbear/issues.htm).
Management and conservation
concerns for the SBS and CS polar bear
populations include: Climate change,
which continues to increase both the
expanse and duration of open water in
summer and fall; human activities
within the near-shore environment,
including oil and gas activities;
atmospheric and oceanic transport of
contaminants into the Arctic; and overharvest, should polar bear stocks
become nutritionally stressed or decline
due to some combination of the
aforementioned threats.
Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS)
The SBS polar bear population is
shared between Canada and Alaska.
Radio-telemetry data, combined with
earlier tag returns from harvested bears,
suggest that the SBS region comprised a
single population with a western
boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an
eastern boundary near Pearce Point,
Northwest Territories, Canada. Early
estimates from the mid-1980s suggested
the size of the SBS population was
approximately 1,800 polar bears,
although uneven sampling was known
to compromise the accuracy of that
estimate. A population analysis of the
SBS stock was completed in June 2006
through joint research coordinated
between the United States and Canada.
That analysis indicated the population
of the region between Icy Cape and
Pearce Point is now approximately
1,500 polar bears (95 percent confidence
intervals approximately 1,000–2,000).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Although the confidence intervals of the
current population estimate overlap the
previous population estimate of 1,800,
other statistical and ecological evidence
(e.g., high recapture rates in the field)
suggest that the current population is
actually smaller than has been estimated
for this area in the past.
Recent analyses of radio-telemetry
data of spatio-temporal use patterns of
bears of the SBS stock using new spatial
modelling techniques suggest
realignment of the boundaries of the
SBS area. We now know that nearly all
bears in the central coastal region of the
Beaufort Sea are from the SBS
population, and that proportional
representation of SBS bears decreases to
both the west and east. For example,
only 50 percent of the bears occurring
in Barrow, Alaska, and Tuktoyaktuk,
Northwest Territories, are SBS bears,
with the remainder being from the CS
and Northern Beaufort Sea populations,
respectively. The recent radio-telemetry
data indicate that bears from the SBS
population seldom reach Pearce Point,
which is currently on the eastern
management boundary for the SBS
population. Conversely, SBS bears can
also be found in the western regions of
their range in the Chukchi Sea (i.e.,
Wainwright and Point Lay) in lower
proportions than the central portion of
their range.
Additional threats evaluated during
the listing included impacts from
activities such as industrial operations,
subsistence harvest, shipping, and
tourism. No other impacts were
considered significant in causing the
decline, but minimizing effects from
these activities could become
increasingly important for conservation
as polar bear numbers continue to
diminish. More information can be
found at: https://www.fws.gov/ and
https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/
polarbear/issues.htm.
Chukchi/Bering Seas (CS)
The CS is defined as those polar bears
inhabiting the area as far west as the
eastern portion of the Eastern Siberian
Sea, as far east as Point Barrow, and
extending into the Bering Sea, with its
southern boundary determined by the
extent of annual ice. Based upon
telemetry studies, the western boundary
of the population has been set near
Chaunskaya Bay in northeastern Russia.
The eastern boundary is at Icy Cape,
Alaska, which is also the previous
western boundary of the SBS. This
eastern boundary constitutes a large
overlap zone with bears in the SBS
population. The status of the CS
population, which was believed to have
increased after the level of harvest was
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
reduced in 1972, is now thought to be
uncertain or declining. The most recent
population estimate for the CS
population is 2,000 animals. This was
based on extrapolation of aerial den
surveys from the early 1990s; however,
this crude estimate is currently
considered to be of little value for
management. Reliable estimates of
population size based upon mark and
recapture are not available for this
region, and measuring the population
size remains a research challenge (Evans
et al. 2003).
With the action of the Bilateral
Commission under the Bilateral
Agreement on the Conservation and
Management of the Alaska-Chukotka
Polar Bear Population, legal subsistence
harvest for polar bears from the CS stock
occurs in both Russia and in western
Alaska, as long as this harvest does not
affect the sustainability of the polar bear
population. In Alaska, average annual
harvest levels declined by
approximately 50 percent between the
1980s and the 1990s and have remained
at low levels in recent years. There are
several factors potentially affecting the
harvest level in western Alaska. The
factor of greatest direct relevance is the
substantial illegal harvest in Chukotka.
In recent years a reportedly sizable
illegal harvest has occurred in Russia,
despite a ban on hunting that has been
in place since 1956. In addition, other
factors such as climate change and its
effects on pack ice distribution, as well
as changing demographics and hunting
effort in native communities, could
influence the declining take. The
unknown rate of illegal take makes the
stable designation uncertain and
tentative.
Habitat
Polar bears evolved for life in the
Arctic and are distributed throughout
most ice-covered seas of the Northern
Hemisphere. They are generally limited
to areas where the sea is ice-covered for
much of the year; however, polar bears
are not evenly distributed throughout
their range. They are most abundant
near the shore in shallow-water areas,
and in other areas where currents and
ocean upwelling increase marine
productivity and maintain some open
water during the ice-covered season.
Over most of their range, polar bears
remain on the sea ice year-round or
spend only short periods on land.
The Service designated critical habitat
for polar bear populations in the United
States effective January 6, 2011 (75 FR
76086; December 7, 2010). Critical
habitat identifies geographic areas that
contain features that are essential for the
conservation of a threatened or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
endangered species and that may
require special management or
protection. The designation of critical
habitat under the ESA does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. It does not allow
government or public access to private
lands. A critical habitat designation
does not affect private lands unless
Federal funds, permits, or activities are
involved. Federal agencies that
undertake, fund, or permit activities that
may affect critical habitat are required to
consult with the Service to ensure that
such actions do not adversely modify or
destroy critical habitat.
The Service’s designation of critical
habitat is divided into three areas or
units: barrier island habitat, sea ice
habitat (both described in geographic
terms), and terrestrial denning habitat (a
functional description). Barrier island
habitat includes coastal barrier islands
and spits along Alaska’s coast and is
used for denning, refuge from human
disturbances, access to maternal dens
and feeding habitat, and travel along the
coast. Sea ice habitat is located over the
continental shelf, and includes water
300 m (984 ft) and less in depth.
Terrestrial denning habitat includes
lands within 32 km (20 miles) of the
northern coast of Alaska between the
Canadian border and the Kavik River
and within 8 km (5 miles) of the
coastline between the Kavik River and
Barrow. The total area designated covers
approximately 484,734 square
kilometers (187,157 square miles) and is
entirely within the lands and waters of
the United States. A detailed
description of the critical habitat can be
found online at https://www.regulations.
gov at Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2009–
0042.
Denning and Reproduction
Female bears can be quite sensitive to
disturbances during denning. Females
can initiate breeding at 5 to 6 years of
age. Females without dependent cubs
breed in the spring. Pregnant females
enter maternity dens by late November,
and the young are usually born in late
December or early January. Only
pregnant females den for an extended
period during the winter; other polar
bears may excavate temporary dens to
escape harsh winter winds. An average
of two cubs is born. Reproductive
potential (intrinsic rate of increase) is
low. The average reproductive interval
for a polar bear is 3 to 4 years, and a
female polar bear can produce about 8
to 10 cubs in her lifetime; in healthy
populations, 50 to 60 percent of the
cubs will survive.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47019
In late March or early April, the
female and cubs emerge from the den.
If the mother moves young cubs from
the den before they can walk or
withstand the cold, mortality to the cubs
increases. Therefore, it is thought that
successful denning, birthing, and
rearing activities require a relatively
undisturbed environment. Radio and
satellite telemetry studies elsewhere
indicate that denning can occur in
multi-year pack ice and on land. Recent
studies of the SBS indicate that the
proportion of dens on pack ice have
declined from approximately 60 percent
in 1985–1994 to 40 percent in 1998–
2004.
In northern Alaska, maternal polar
bear dens appear to be less concentrated
than in Canada to the east and in Russia
to the west. In Alaska, certain areas,
such as barrier islands (linear features of
low-elevation land adjacent to the main
coastline that are separated from the
mainland by bodies of water), river bank
drainages, much of the North slope
coastal plain, and coastal bluffs that
occur at the interface of mainland and
marine habitat, receive proportionally
greater use for denning than other areas.
Maternal denning occurs on tundrabearing barrier islands along the
Beaufort Sea and also in the large river
deltas, such as those associated with the
Colville and Canning rivers.
A recent study showed that the
proportion of polar bears denning in the
SBS on pack ice, which requires a high
level of sea-ice stability for successful
denning, declined from 62 percent in
1985–1994 to 37 percent in 1998–2004
(Fischbach et al. 2007). The authors
concluded that the denning distribution
changed in response to reductions in
stable old ice, increases in
unconsolidated ice, and lengthening of
the melt season. 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).
Prey
Ringed seals (Pusa hispida) are the
primary prey of polar bears in most
areas. Bearded seals (Erignathus
barbatus) and walrus calves are hunted
occasionally. Polar bears also
opportunistically scavenge marine
mammal carcasses, notably bowhead
whale (Balaena mysticetus) carcasses at
Point Barrow, and Cross and Barter
islands, associated with the annual
subsistence hunt in these communities.
There are also anecdotal reports of polar
bears killing beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas) trapped in the
ice, although the importance of beluga
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47020
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
as a food source is not known. Polar
bears have also been observed
consuming non-food items including
Styrofoam, plastic, antifreeze, and
hydraulic and lubricating fluids.
Polar bears use the sea ice as a
platform to hunt seals. Polar bears often
hunt seals along leads and other areas
of open water. Polar bears also hunt
seals at breathing holes, or by breaking
through the roof of seal lairs. Lairs are
excavated by seals in snow drifts on top
of the ice. Bears also stalk seals in the
spring when they haul out on the ice in
warm weather. The relationship
between ice type and polar bear
distribution is as yet unknown, but it is
suspected to be related to seal
availability. Due to changing sea ice
conditions, the area of open water and
proportion of marginal ice has increased
and extends later in the fall. This may
limit seal availability to polar bears as
the most productive areas for seals
appear to be over the shallower waters
of the continental shelf.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Mortality
Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30
years), have no natural predators, and
do not appear prone to death by
diseases or parasites. Cannibalism by
adult males on cubs and occasionally on
adult bears is known to occur. The most
significant source of premature adult
polar bear mortality is human activity.
Before the MMPA was passed in 1972,
polar bears were taken by sport hunters
and residents. Between 1925 and 1972,
the mean reported kill was 186 bears per
year. Seventy-five percent of these were
males, as cubs and females with cubs
were protected. Since 1972, only Alaska
Natives from coastal Alaskan villages
have been allowed to hunt polar bears
for their subsistence uses, for the
manufacture of handicraft and clothing
items. From 1980 to 2005, the total
annual harvest for Alaska averaged 101
bears: 64 percent from the Chukchi Sea
and 36 percent from the Beaufort Sea.
Other sources of mortality related to
human activities include bears killed
during research activities, euthanasia of
sick or injured bears, and defense-of-life
kills by non-Natives (Brower et al.
2002).
Distribution and Abundance of Polar
Bears in the Beaufort Sea
Polar bears are dependent upon the
sea ice as a platform for foraging. The
most productive locations seem to be
areas near the ice edge, leads, or
polynyas over the continental shelf
(Durner et al. 2004). Polar bears can also
be observed throughout the year in the
onshore and nearshore environments,
where they will opportunistically
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
scavenge on marine mammal carcasses
washed up along the shoreline
(Kalxdorff and Fischbach 1998). Their
distribution in the coastal habitat can be
influenced by the movement of the
seasonal pack ice.
More specifically, during the icecovered season, pregnant females can
use terrestrial denning habitat between
late-October and mid-April. The
percentage of pregnant females using
terrestrial habitat for denning is
unknown but, as stated earlier, the
proportion of dens on terrestrial habitat
has increased in recent years. In
addition, a small proportion of bears of
different cohorts may be found along the
coastline as well during this time
period. During the open water season
(July through September), a small
proportion of bears will utilize the
coastal environments while the majority
of the population will be on the ice edge
of the pack ice.
During the late summer/fall period
(August through October), polar bears
are most likely to be encountered along
the mainland coastline and barrier
islands, using these features as travel
corridors and hunting areas. Based on
Industry observations, encounter rates
are higher during the fall period (August
to October) than any other time period.
The duration the bears spend in these
coastal habitats depends on storm
events, ice conditions, and the
formation of the annual ice. In recent
years, polar bears have been observed in
larger numbers than previously
recorded during the fall period. The
remains of subsistence-harvested
bowhead whales at Cross and Barter
Islands provide a readily available food
source for the bears in these areas and
appear to play a role in these numbers
(Schliebe et al. 2006). Based on Industry
observations and coastal survey data
acquired by the Service, up to 125
individuals of the SBS bear population
have been observed during the fall
period between Barrow and the AlaskaCanada border.
Climate Change
Habitat loss due to changes in Arctic
sea ice has been identified as the
primary cause of decline in polar bear
populations, and the decline of sea ice
is expected to continue throughout the
polar bear’s range for the foreseeable
future (73 FR 28212). In support of the
listing, Amstrup et al. (2007) projected
that if current sea ice declines continue,
the sea-ice retreat may eventually
exclude bears from onshore denning
habitat in the Polar Basin Divergent
Region, where they have projected a 42
percent loss of optimal summer polar
bear habitat by 2050. SBS and CS polar
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
bear populations inhabit this ecoregion,
and Amstrup et al. (2007) have
projected that these populations will be
extirpated within the next 45–75 years
if sea ice declines continue at current
rates.
Climate change is likely to have
serious consequences for the worldwide population of polar bears and their
prey (ACIA 2004, Derocher et al. 2004,
NRC 2003). Climate change is expected
to impact polar bears in a variety of
ways. The timing of ice formation and
breakup will impact seal distributions
and abundance, and, consequently, how
efficiently polar bears can hunt seals.
Reductions in sea ice are expected to
increase the polar bears’ energetic costs
of traveling, as moving through
fragmented sea ice and open water
requires more energy than walking
across consolidated sea ice.
Decreased sea ice extent may impact
the reproductive success of denning
polar bears. Polar bears require a stable
substrate for denning. As ice conditions
moderate, ice platforms become less
stable, and coastal dens become
vulnerable to erosion from storm surges.
In the 1990s, approximately 50 percent
of the maternal dens of the SBS polar
bear population occurred annually on
the pack ice rather than on terrestrial
sites (Amstrup and Gardner 1994).
Recently, the proportion of dens on
pack ice declined from 62 percent in
1985–1994 to 37 percent in 1998–2004
(Fischbach et al. 2007). Terrestrial
denning is expected to increase in the
future, despite the threats of coastal
erosion.
Due to the changing ice conditions,
the Service anticipates that polar bear
use of the Beaufort Sea coast will
increase during the open-water season
(June through October). Indeed, polar
bear use of coastal areas during the fall
open-water period has increased in
recent years in the Beaufort Sea. This
change in distribution has been
correlated with the distance of the pack
ice from the coast at that time of year
(the farther from shore the leading edge
of the pack ice is, the more bears are
observed onshore) (Schliebe et al. 2006).
Reductions in sea ice will result in
increased distances between the ice
edge and land, which will in turn lead
to increasing numbers of bears coming
ashore during the open-water period, or
possibly drowning in an attempt to
reach land. An increased number of
bears on land may increase human-bear
interactions or conflicts during this
period.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry
Activities on Subsistence Uses of Marine
Mammals
Pacific walruses and polar bears have
been traditionally harvested by Alaska
Natives for subsistence purposes. The
harvest of these species plays an
important role in the culture and
economy of many villages throughout
coastal Alaska. Walrus meat is often
consumed, and the ivory is used to
manufacture traditional arts and crafts.
Polar bears are primarily hunted for
their fur, which is used to make cold
weather gear; however, their meat is
also consumed. Although walruses and
polar bears are a part of the annual
subsistence harvest of most rural
communities on the North Slope of
Alaska, these species are not as
significant a food resource as bowhead
whales, seals, caribou (Rangifer
tarandus), and fish.
An exemption under section 101(b) of
the MMPA allows Alaska Natives who
reside in Alaska and dwell on the coast
of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic
Ocean to take polar bears and walruses
if such taking is for subsistence
purposes or for purposes of creating and
selling authentic native articles of
handicrafts and clothing, as long as the
take is not done in a wasteful manner.
Sport hunting of both species has been
prohibited in the United States since
enactment of the MMPA in 1972.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Pacific Walrus—Harvest Information
Few walruses are harvested in the
Beaufort Sea along the northern coast of
Alaska, as the primary range of Pacific
walruses is west and south of the
Beaufort Sea. Walruses constitute a
small portion of the total marine
mammal harvest for the village of
Barrow. Hunters from Barrow have
reported 477 walruses harvested in the
past 20 years, 65 of those since 2005.
Reports indicate that up to six animals,
approximately 10 percent of the
recorded harvest, were taken east of
Point Barrow in the last 5 years within
the geographical limits of the incidental
take regulations. Hunters from Nuiqsut
and Kaktovik do not normally hunt
walruses unless the opportunity arises.
They have reported taking only three
walruses since the inception of the
regulations. Two walruses were
harvested on Cross Island in 2004, but
no walruses have been harvested since
2005. To date, two percent of the total
walrus harvest for Barrow, Nuiqsut, and
Kaktovik from 1994 to 2009 has
occurred within the geographic range of
the incidental take regulations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
47021
Plan of Cooperation
communities using the geographic
region, any applicant requesting an LOA
is required to present a record of
communication that reflects discussions
with the Native communities most
likely affected by the activity. The North
Slope native communities that could
potentially be affected by Industry
activities include Barrow, Nuiqsut, and
Kaktovik. Polar bears and Pacific
walruses inhabiting the Beaufort Sea
represent a small portion, in terms of
the number of animals, of the total
subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife
for the villages of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and
Kaktovik. Nevertheless, harvest of these
species is important to Alaska Natives.
Therefore, an important aspect of the
LOA process is that, prior to issuance of
an LOA, Industry must provide
evidence to the Service that an adequate
POC has been coordinated with any
affected subsistence community (or, as
appropriate, with the EWC, the Alaska
Nanuuq Commission (ANC), and the
North Slope Borough (NSB)) if, after
community consultations, Industry and
the community conclude that increased
mitigation and monitoring is necessary
to minimize impacts to subsistence
resources. Where relevant, a POC will
describe measures to be taken to
mitigate potential conflicts between the
proposed activity and subsistence
hunting. If requested by Industry or the
affected subsistence community, the
Service will review these plans and
provide guidance. The Service will
reject POCs if they do not provide
adequate safeguards to ensure that any
taking by Industry will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of polar bears and walruses
for taking for subsistence uses.
Included as part of the POC process
and the overall State and Federal
permitting process of Industry activities,
Industry engages the Native
communities in numerous informational
meetings. During these community
meetings, Industry must ascertain if
community responses indicate that
impact to subsistence uses will occur as
a result of activities in the requested
LOA. If community concerns suggest
that Industry activities may have an
impact on the subsistence uses of these
species, the POC must provide the
procedures on how Industry will work
with the affected Native communities
and what actions will be taken to avoid
interfering with the availability of polar
bears and walruses for subsistence
harvest.
As a condition of incidental take
authorization, and to ensure that
Industry activities do not impact
subsistence opportunities for
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects of
Activities on Subsistence Uses
No unmitigable concerns from the
potentially affected communities
Polar Bear—Harvest Information
Alaska Natives from coastal villages
are permitted to harvest polar bears.
Current harvest levels are believed to be
sustainable for the SBS population at
present (USFWS unpubl. data).
Although there are no restrictions under
the MMPA, a more restrictive Native-toNative agreement between the Inupiat
from Alaska and the Inuvialuit in
Canada was created in 1988. This
agreement, referred to as the InuvialuitInupiat Polar Bear Management
Agreement, established quotas and
recommendations concerning protection
of denning females, family groups, and
methods of take. Although this
Agreement does not have the force of
law from either the Canadian or the U.S.
Governments, the users have abided by
its terms. In Canada, users are subject to
provincial regulations consistent with
the Agreement. Commissioners for the
Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement set the
original quota at 76 bears in 1988, and
it was later increased to 80. The quota
was based on estimates of the
population size and age-specific
estimates of survival and recruitment.
One estimate suggests that harvest up to
1.5 percent of the adult females was
sustainable. Combining this estimate
and a 2:1 sex ratio (male:female) of the
harvest ratio, 4.5 percent of the total
population could be harvested each
year. In July 2010, at the most recent
Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear
Management Meeting, the quota was
reduced from 80 to 70 bears per year.
The Service has monitored the Alaska
polar bear harvest since 1980. The
Native subsistence harvest from the SBS
has remained relatively consistent since
1980 and averages 36 bears removed per
year. The combined harvest from Alaska
and Canada from the SBS appears
sustainable and equitable. During the
period 2005–2009, 84 bears were
harvested by residents of Barrow, 11 for
Kaktovik, 6 for Nuiqsut, 13 for
Wainwright, and 3 for Atqasuk for a
total of 117 bears harvested. This was a
decline of 40 harvested bears from the
previous timeframe analyzed (2000–
2004: 157 bears harvested). The Native
subsistence harvest is the largest source
of mortality related to human activities,
although several bears have been killed
during research activities, through
euthanasia of sick or injured bears, by
accidental drowning, or in defense of
human life by non-Natives.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
47022
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
regarding the availability of polar bears
or walruses for subsistence uses have
been identified through Industry
consultations in the potentially affected
communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and
Kaktovik in the geographic region.
Because of the proximity of Industry
activities to the location of its hunting
areas for polar bears and walruses,
Nuiqsut continues to be the community
most likely to be affected by these
activities. Nuiqsut is located within 8
km (5 mi) of ConocoPhillips’ Alpine
production field to the north and
ConocoPhillips’ Alpine Satellite
development field to the west. For this
rule, we determined that the total taking
of polar bears and walruses will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of these species for
subsistence uses to Nuiqsut residents
during the duration of the regulation.
We base this conclusion on: the results
of coastal aerial surveys conducted
between 2000 and 2009 within the area;
direct observations of polar bears
occurring on Cross Island during
Nuiqsut’s annual fall bowhead whaling
efforts; and anecdotal reports and recent
sightings of polar bears by Nuiqsut
residents. In addition, we have received
no evidence or reports that bears are
being deflected (i.e., altering habitat use
patterns by avoiding certain areas) or
being impacted in other ways by the
existing level of oil and gas activity near
communities or traditional hunting
areas that would diminish their
availability for subsistence use, and we
do not expect any change in the impact
of future activities during the regulatory
period.
Barrow and Kaktovik are expected to
be affected differently and to a lesser
degree by oil and gas activities than
Nuiqsut due to their distance from
known Industry activities during the 5year period of the regulations. Through
aerial surveys, direct observations,
community consultations, and personal
communication with hunters, it appears
that subsistence opportunities for bears
and walruses have not been impacted by
past Industry operations conducted
under previously issued ITRs, and we
do not anticipate any new impacts to
result from their activities.
Changes in activity locations may
trigger community concerns regarding
the effect on subsistence uses. Industry
will need to remain proactive to address
potential impacts on the subsistence
uses by affected communities through
consultations and, where warranted,
POCs. Open communication through
venues, such as public meetings, that
allow communities to express feedback
prior to the initiation of operations, will
be required as part of an LOA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
application. If community subsistence
use concerns arise from new activities,
appropriate mitigation measures are
available and will be applied, such as a
cessation of certain activities at certain
locations during specified times of the
year (i.e., hunting seasons). Hence, we
find that any take will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of polar bears or walruses
for subsistence uses by residents of the
affected communities.
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry
Activities on Pacific Walruses, Polar
Bears, and Prey Species
Individual walruses and polar bears
can be affected by Industry activities in
numerous ways. These include: (1)
Noise disturbance; (2) physical
obstructions; (3) human encounters; and
(4) effects on prey.
Pacific Walrus
The Beaufort Sea is beyond the
normal range of the Pacific walrus, and
the likelihood of encountering walruses
during Industry operations is low.
During the time period of these
regulations, Industry operations may
occasionally encounter small groups of
walruses swimming in open water or
hauled out onto ice floes or along the
coast. Although interactions are
expected to be infrequent, these
activities could potentially result in
some level of disturbances. The
response of walruses to disturbance
stimuli is highly variable. Anecdotal
observations by walrus hunters and
researchers suggest that males tend to be
more tolerant of disturbances than
females, and individuals tend to be
more tolerant than groups. Females with
dependent calves are considered least
tolerant of disturbances. In other parts
of their range, disturbance events are
known to cause walrus groups to
abandon land or ice haulouts and
occasionally to result in trampling
injuries or cow-calf separations, both of
which are potentially fatal. Calves and
young animals at the perimeter of the
haulouts appear particularly vulnerable
to trampling injuries.
1. Noise Disturbance
Noise generated by Industry activities,
whether stationary or mobile, has the
potential to disturb small numbers of
walruses. Potential impacts of Industrygenerated noise include displacement
from preferred foraging areas, increased
stress and energy expenditure,
interference with feeding, and masking
of communications. Any impact of
Industry noise on walruses is likely to
be limited to a few individuals due to
their geographic range and seasonal
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
distribution within the area of Industry
activities. Pacific walruses generally
inhabit the pack ice of the Bering Sea
and do not normally range into the
Beaufort Sea, although individuals and
small groups are occasionally observed.
Reactions of marine mammals to
noise sources, particularly mobile
sources such as marine vessels, vary.
Reactions depend on the individuals’
prior exposure to the disturbance
source, their need or desire to be in the
particular habitat or area where they are
exposed to the noise, and the visual
presence of the disturbance sources.
Walruses are typically more sensitive to
disturbance when hauled out on land or
ice than when they are in the water. In
addition, females and young are
generally more sensitive to disturbance
than adult males.
A. Stationary Sources
Endicott, BP’s Saltwater Treatment
Plant (located on the West Dock
Causeway), Oooguruk, and Northstar are
the offshore facilities that could produce
noise that has the potential to disturb
walruses. Liberty, as part of the Endicott
complex, will also have this potential
when it commences operations. A few
walruses have been observed in the
vicinity of these facilities. Three
walruses have hauled out on Northstar
Island since its construction in 2000,
and a walrus was observed swimming
near the Saltwater Treatment Plant in
2004. In 2007, a female and subadult
walrus were observed hauled out on the
Endicott Causeway. In instances where
walruses have been seen near these
facilities, they have appeared to be
attracted to them, possibly as resting
areas or haulouts.
B. Mobile Sources
Seismic operations introduce
substantial levels of noise into the
marine environment. There are
relatively few data available to evaluate
the potential response of walruses to
seismic operations. Although the
hearing sensitivity of walruses is poorly
known, source levels associated with
marine 3D and 2D seismic surveys are
thought to be high enough to cause
temporary hearing loss in other
pinniped species. Therefore, it is
possible that walruses within the 180decibel (dB re 1 μPa) safety radius for
seismic activities could suffer temporary
shifts in hearing thresholds.
Seismic surveys and high-resolution
site clearance surveys are typically
carried out in open-water conditions,
where walrus numbers are expected to
be low. The potential for interactions
with large concentrations of walruses,
which typically favor sea-ice habitats,
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
is, therefore, low. Seismic operations in
the Beaufort Sea may, however,
encounter small herds of walruses
swimming in open water. Potential
adverse effects of seismic noise on
swimming walruses can be reduced
through the implementation of
sufficient, practicable monitoring
coupled with adaptive management
responses (where the mitigation
measures required are dependent on
what is discovered during monitoring).
Previous open-water seismic
exploration has been conducted in
nearshore ice-free areas. Any future
open-water seismic exploration that will
occur during the duration of this rule
will also occur in nearshore ice-free
areas. It is highly unlikely that walruses
will be present in these areas. Therefore,
it is not expected that seismic
exploration would disturb walruses.
Furthermore, with the adoption of the
mitigation measures described in
Section VI of the EA prepared in
conjunction with this rulemaking, the
Service concludes that the only
anticipated effects of seismic operations
in the Beaufort Sea would be short-term
behavioral alterations of small numbers
of walruses.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
C. Vessel Traffic
Although seismic surveys and
offshore drilling operations are expected
to occur in areas of open water away
from the pack ice, support vessels and/
or aircraft servicing seismic and drill
operations may encounter aggregations
of walruses hauled out onto sea ice. The
sight, sound, or smell of humans and
machines could potentially displace
these animals from any ice haulouts.
Walruses react variably to noise from
vessel traffic; however, it appears that
low-frequency diesel engines cause less
of a disturbance than high-frequency
outboard engines. The reaction of
walruses to vessel traffic is dependent
upon vessel type, distance, speed, and
previous exposure to disturbances.
Walruses in the water appear to be less
readily disturbed by vessels than
walruses hauled out on land or ice.
Walrus densities within their normal
distribution are highest along the edge
of the pack ice, an area that Industry
vessel traffic typically avoids. Barges
and vessels associated with Industry
activities travel in open water and avoid
large ice floes or land where walruses
are likely to be found. In addition,
walruses can use a vessel as a haul-out
platform. In 2009, during Industry
activities in the Chukchi Sea, an adult
walrus was found hauled out on the
stern of a vessel. It eventually left once
confronted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Drilling operations are expected to
involve drill ships attended by
icebreaking vessels to manage
incursions of sea ice. Ice management
operations are expected to have the
greatest potential for disturbance
because walruses are more likely to be
encountered in sea ice habitats, and
because ice management operations
typically require the vessel to accelerate,
reverse direction, and turn rapidly,
thereby maximizing propeller
cavitations and producing significant
noise. Previous monitoring efforts in the
Chukchi Sea suggest that icebreaking
activities can displace some walrus
groups up to several kilometers away;
however, most groups of hauled-out
walruses showed little reaction beyond
800 m (0.5 mi).
Monitoring programs associated with
exploratory drilling operations in the
Chukchi Sea in 1990 noted that 25
percent of walrus groups encountered in
the pack ice during icebreaking
responded by diving into the water,
with most reactions occurring within 1
km (0.6 mi) of the ship. The monitoring
report noted that: (1) Walrus
distributions were closely linked with
pack ice; (2) pack ice was near active
prospects for relatively short time
periods; and (3) ice passing near active
prospects contained relatively few
animals. The report concluded that
effects of the drilling operations on
walruses were limited in time,
geographical scale, and the proportion
of population affected.
When walruses are present,
underwater noise from vessel traffic in
the Beaufort Sea may ‘‘mask’’ ordinary
communication between individuals by
preventing them from locating one
another. It may also prevent walruses
from using potential habitats in the
Beaufort Sea and may have the potential
to impede movement. Vessel traffic will
likely increase if offshore Industry
expands and may increase if warming
waters and seasonally reduced sea-ice
cover alter northern shipping lanes.
Because offshore exploration
activities are expected to move
throughout the Beaufort Sea, impacts
associated with support vessels and
aircrafts are likely to be distributed in
time and space. Therefore, the only
effect anticipated would be short-term
behavioral alterations impacting small
numbers of walruses in the vicinity of
active operations. Adoption of
mitigation measures that include an
800-m (0.5-mi) exclusion zone for
marine vessels around walrus groups
observed on ice are expected to reduce
the intensity of disturbance events and
minimize the potential for injuries to
animals.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47023
D. Aircraft Traffic
Aircraft overflights may disturb
walruses. Reactions to aircraft vary with
range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as
well as walrus age, sex, and group size.
Adult females, calves, and immature
walruses tend to be more sensitive to
aircraft disturbance. Fixed-winged
aircraft are less likely to elicit a
response than helicopter overflights.
Walruses are particularly sensitive to
changes in engine noise and are more
likely to stampede when planes turn or
fly low overhead. Researchers
conducting aerial surveys for walruses
in sea-ice habitats have observed little
reaction to fixed-winged aircraft above
457 m (1,500 ft) (USFWS unpubl. data).
Although the intensity of the reaction to
noise is variable, walruses are probably
most susceptible to disturbance by fastmoving and low-flying aircraft (100 m
(328 ft) above ground level). Based on
this information, and to make this rule
more standard with other regulations
within the same geographic area, the
Service revised the minimum acceptable
aircraft altitudes in § 18.128(a)(4)(ii) in
the proposed rule from 305 m (1,000 ft)
to 457 m (1,500 ft) in this final rule.
In 2002, a walrus hauled out near the
SDC on the McCovey prospect was
disturbed when a helicopter landed on
the SDC. However, most aircraft traffic
is in nearshore areas, where there are
typically few or no walruses.
2. Physical Obstructions
Based on known walrus distribution
and the very low numbers found in the
Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, it is
unlikely that walrus movements would
be displaced by offshore stationary
facilities, such as the Northstar Island or
causeway-linked Endicott/Liberty
complex, or vessel traffic. There is no
indication that the few walruses that
used Northstar Island as a haulout in
2001 were displaced from their
movements. Vessel traffic could
temporarily interrupt the movement of
walruses or displace some animals
when vessels pass through an area. This
displacement would probably have
minimal or no effect on animals and
would last no more than a few hours.
3. Human Encounters
Human encounters with walruses
could occur in the course of Industry
activities, although such encounters
would be rare due to the limited
distribution of walruses in the Beaufort
Sea. These encounters may occur within
certain cohorts of the population, such
as calves or animals under stress. In
2004, a suspected orphaned calf hauled
out on the armor of Northstar Island
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47024
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
numerous times over a 48-hour period,
causing Industry to cease certain
activities and alter work patterns before
it disappeared in stormy seas.
Additionally, a walrus calf was
observed for 15 minutes during an
exploration program 18 m (60 ft) from
the dock at Cape Simpson in 2006. It
climbed onto an extended barge ramp,
which was lowered. The walrus then
jumped in the water the moment the
crew member started the ramp engine.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
4. Effect on Prey Species
Walruses feed primarily on immobile
benthic invertebrates. The effect of
Industry activities on benthic
invertebrates most likely would be from
oil discharged into the environment. Oil
has the potential to impact walrus prey
species in a variety of ways, including
but not limited to mortality due to
smothering or toxicity, perturbations in
the composition of the benthic
community, and altered metabolic and
growth rates. Relatively few walruses
are present in the central Beaufort Sea.
It is important to note that, although the
status of walrus prey species within the
Beaufort Sea is poorly known, it is
unclear what role, if any, prey
abundance plays in limiting the use of
the Beaufort Sea by walruses. Further
study of the Beaufort Sea benthic
community as it relates to walruses is
warranted. The low likelihood of an oil
spill large enough to affect prey
populations (see analysis in the section
titled Potential Impacts of Waste
Product Discharge and Oil Spills on
Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears,
Pacific Walrus subsection) combined
with the fact that walruses are not
present in the region during the icecovered season and occur only
infrequently during the open-water
season indicates that Industry activities
will likely have limited indirect effects
on walruses through effects on prey
species.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on
Walruses
As is the case for previously issued
ITRs, Industry noise disturbance and
associated vessel traffic may have a
more pronounced impact than physical
obstructions or human encounters on
walruses in the Beaufort Sea. However,
due to the limited number of walruses
inhabiting the geographic region during
the open-water season and the absence
of walruses in the region during the icecovered season, the Service anticipates
minimal impact to only small numbers
of individual walruses and that any take
will have a negligible impact on this
stock during the 5-year regulatory
period.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Polar Bear
Polar bears are present in the region
of activity. Therefore, oil and gas
activities could impact polar bears in
various ways during both open-water
and ice-covered seasons. Impacts from:
(1) Noise disturbance; (2) physical
obstructions; (3) human encounters; and
(4) effects on prey species are described
below.
1. Noise Disturbance
Noise produced by Industry activities
during the open-water and ice-covered
seasons could potentially result in the
take of polar bears. Noise disturbances
may affect bears differently depending
upon their reproductive status (e.g.,
denning versus non-denning bears). The
best available scientific information
indicates that female polar bears
entering dens, or females in dens with
cubs, are more sensitive than other age
and sex groups to noises.
Noise disturbance can originate from
either stationary or mobile sources.
Stationary sources include:
construction, maintenance, repair, and
remediation activities; operations at
production facilities; flaring of excess
gas; and drilling operations from either
onshore or offshore facilities. Mobile
sources include: vessel and aircraft
traffic; open-water seismic exploration;
winter vibroseis programs; geotechnical
surveys; ice road construction and
associated vehicle traffic, including
tracked vehicles and snowmobiles;
drilling; dredging; and ice-breaking
vessels.
A. Stationary Sources
All production facilities on the North
Slope in the area to be covered by this
rulemaking are currently located within
the landfast ice zone. Typically, most
polar bears occur in the active ice zone,
far offshore, hunting throughout the
year, although some bears also spend a
limited amount of time on land, coming
ashore to feed, den, or move to other
areas. At times, usually during the fall
season when fall storms and ocean
currents may deposit ice-bound bears on
land, bears may remain along the coast
or on barrier islands for several weeks
until the ice returns.
Noise produced by stationary Industry
activities could elicit variable responses
from polar bears. The noise may act as
a deterrent to bears entering the area, or
the noise could potentially attract bears.
Attracting bears to these facilities,
especially exploration facilities in the
coastal or nearshore environment, could
result in human-bear encounters,
unintentional harassment, lethal take, or
intentional hazing (stipulated under
separate authorization) of the bear.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Noise from Industry activities has the
ability to disturb bears at den sites.
However, the timing of potential
Industry impacts relative to the time
period in the denning cycle when any
disturbance occurs can have varying
impacts on the female bear and the
family group. Researchers have
suggested that disturbances, including
noise, can negatively impact bears
during the early stages of denning,
where the pregnant female has limited
investment at the site, by causing them
to abandon the site in search of another
one. Premature site abandonment may
also occur after the bears have emerged,
but while they are still at the den site,
when cubs are acclimating to their ‘‘new
environment’’ and the female bear is
now vigilant of the environment in
regards to her offspring. During this
time, in-air noises may disturb the
female to the point that she abandons
the den site before the cubs are
physiologically ready to move from the
site.
An example of a den abandonment in
the early stages of denning occurred in
January 1985, where a female polar bear
appears to have abandoned her den in
response to Rolligon traffic, which was
occurring within 500 m (1,640 ft) of the
den site. In 2002, noise associated with
a polar bear research camp in close
proximity to a bear den is thought to
have caused a female bear and her
cub(s) to abandon their den and move
to the ice prematurely. In 2006, a female
and two cubs emerged from a den 400
m (1,312 ft) from an active river crossing
construction site. The den site was
abandoned within hours of cub
emergence after only 3 days. In 2009, a
female and two cubs emerged from a
den site within 100 m (328 ft) of an
active ice road with heavy traffic and
quickly abandoned the site. While such
events may have occurred, information
indicates they have been infrequent and
isolated. It is important to note that the
knowledge of these recent examples
occurred because of the monitoring and
reporting program established by the
ITRs.
Conversely, during the ice-covered
seasons of 2000–2001 and 2001–2002,
dens known to be active were located
within approximately 0.4 km and 0.8
km (0.25 mi and 0.5 mi), respectively,
of remediation activities on Flaxman
Island in the Beaufort Sea with no
observed impact to the polar bears. This
example suggests that polar bears
exposed to routine industrial noises
may habituate to those noises and show
less vigilance than bears not exposed to
such stimuli. This observation came
from a study that occurred in
conjunction with industrial activities
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
performed on Flaxman Island in 2002
and a study of undisturbed dens in 2002
and 2003 (N = 8) (Smith et al. 2007).
Researchers assessed vigilant behavior
with two potential measures of
disturbance: proportion of time
scanning their surroundings and the
frequency of observable vigilant
behaviors. The two bears exposed to the
industrial activity within 1.6 km (1 mi)
spent less time scanning their
surroundings than bears in undisturbed
areas and engaged in vigilant behavior
significantly less often.
The potential for disturbance
increases once the female emerges from
the den, where she is potentially more
vigilant to sights and in-air sounds as
she uses the den site. As noted earlier,
in some cases, while the female is in the
den, Industry activities have progressed
near the den sites with no perceived
disturbance to the bears. Indeed, in the
2006 den incident previously discussed,
it was believed that Industry activity
commenced in the area after the den
had been established. Ancillary
activities occurred within 50 m (164 ft)
of the den site with no apparent
disturbance while the female was in the
den. Ongoing activity most likely had
been occurring for approximately 3
months in the vicinity of the den.
Likewise, in 2009, two bear dens were
located along an active ice-road. The
bear at one den site appeared to
establish her site prior to ice road
activity and was exposed to
approximately 3 months of activity 100
m (328 ft) away and emerged at the
appropriate time. The other den site was
discovered after ice-road construction
commenced. This site was exposed to
ice-road activity, 100 m (328 ft) away,
for approximately 1 month. In all, there
have been three recorded examples
(2006, 2009, and 2010) of pregnant
female bears establishing dens prior to
Industry activity occurring within 400
m (1,312 ft) of the den site, and
remaining in the den through the
normal denning cycle despite the
nearby activity.
More recent data suggests that, with
proper mitigation measures in effect,
activities can continue in the vicinity of
dens until emergence of the female bear.
At that time, mitigation, such as activity
shutdowns near the den and 24-hour
monitoring of the den site can limit
bear/human interactions, thereby
allowing the female bear to abandon the
den naturally and minimize impacts to
the animals. For example, in the spring
of 2010, an active den site was observed
approximately 60 m (197 ft) from a
heavily used ice road. A 1.6-km (1-mi)
exclusion zone was established around
the den, closing a 3.2-km (2-mi) portion
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
of the road. Monitors were assigned to
observe bear activity and monitor
human activity to minimize any other
impacts to the bear group. These
mitigation efforts minimized
disturbance to the bears and allowed
them to abandon the den site naturally.
B. Mobile Sources
During the open-water season in the
SBS, polar bears spend the majority of
their lives on the pack ice, which limits
the chances of impacts on polar bears
from Industry activities. Although polar
bears have been documented in open
water, miles from the ice edge or ice
floes, such occurrences are relatively
rare. In the open-water season, Industry
activities are generally limited to vesselbased exploration activities, such as
ocean-bottom cable (OBC) and shallow
hazards surveys. These activities avoid
ice floes and the multiyear ice edge;
however, they may contact bears in
open water, and the effects of such
encounters will be short-term behavior
disturbance. Polar bears are more likely
to be affected by on-ice seismic surveys
than open-water surveys. Although no
on-ice seismic surveys have reported
polar bear observations during the
period of the last ITRs, disturbance from
on-ice operations would most likely
occur by vehicle and nonpermanent
camp activity associated with the
seismic project. These effects would be
minimal due to the mobility of such
projects and limited to small-scale
alterations of bear movements.
C. Vessel Traffic
During the open-water season, most
polar bears remain offshore associated
with the multiyear pack ice and are not
typically present in the ice-free areas
where vessel traffic occurs. Barges and
vessels associated with Industry
activities travel in open water and avoid
large ice floes. If there is any encounter
between a vessel and a bear, it would
most likely result in short-term
behavioral disturbance only. Indeed,
observations from monitoring programs
report that, in the rare occurrence when
bears are encountered swimming in
open water, they retreat from the vessel
as it passes the bear.
D. Aircraft Traffic
Routine aircraft traffic should have
little or no effect on polar bears;
however, extensive or repeated
overflights of fixed-wing aircraft or
helicopters could disturb polar bears.
Behavioral reactions of non-denning
polar bears should be limited to shortterm changes in behavior, such as
evading the plane by retreating from the
stimulus. These reactions would have
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47025
no long-term impact on individuals and
no discernible impacts on the polar bear
population. In contrast, denning bears
may abandon or depart their dens early
in response to repeated noise produced
by extensive aircraft overflights.
Mitigation measures, such as minimum
flight elevations over polar bears or
areas of concern and flight restrictions
around known polar bear dens, will be
required, as appropriate, to reduce the
likelihood that bears are disturbed by
aircraft.
E. Offshore Seismic Exploration and
Exploratory Drilling
Although polar bears are typically
associated with the pack ice during
summer and fall, open-water seismic
exploration activities can encounter
polar bears in the central Beaufort Sea
in late summer or fall. It is unlikely that
seismic exploration activities or other
geophysical surveys during the openwater season would result in more than
temporary behavioral disturbance to
polar bears. Any disturbance would be
visual and auditory in nature, where
bears could be deflected from their
route. Polar bears could be encountered
on ice, where they would be unaffected
by underwater sound from the airguns.
Bears could also be encountered in the
water. Sound levels received by polar
bears in the water would be attenuated
because polar bears generally do not
dive much below the surface and
normally swim with their heads above
the surface, where noises produced
underwater are weak. Sound attenuation
occurs because received levels of airgun
sounds are reduced near the surface
because of the pressure release effect at
the water’s surface (Greene and
Richardson 1988, Richardson et al.
1995).
Noise and vibrations produced by oil
and gas activities during the ice-covered
season could potentially result in
impacts on polar bears. During this time
of year, denning female bears and
mobile, non-denning bears could be
exposed to, and affected differently by,
potential impacts from seismic
activities. As stated earlier, disturbances
to denning females, either on land or on
ice, are of particular concern.
As part of the LOA application for
seismic surveys during denning season,
Industry provides us with the proposed
seismic survey routes. To minimize the
likelihood of disturbance to denning
females, the Service evaluates these
routes along with information about
known polar bear dens, historic denning
sites, and delineated denning habitat
prior to authorizing seismic activities.
Previous regulations have analyzed
open-water exploration activity, such as
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47026
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
seismic and drilling activity, even
though this type of open-water activity
has not occurred on an annual basis in
the Beaufort Sea. In the previous ITRs,
open-water seismic programs and
exploratory drilling programs were
analyzed for impacts to polar bears and
walruses. Due to the limited scope of
the planned offshore activities, we
concluded that this level of activity
would affect only small numbers of
polar bears and walrus and would have
no more than negligible effects on the
populations. The actual number of
offshore seismic projects during the
previous regulatory period was smaller
than the amount analyzed. We issued
LOAs for five offshore seismic projects,
and no offshore drilling projects
occurred, even though drilling projects
were requested twice during the
previous ITRs (2006–2011).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
2. Physical Obstructions
There is some chance that Industry
facilities would act as physical barriers
to movements of polar bears. Most
facilities are located onshore and
inland, where polar bears are only
occasionally found. The offshore and
coastal facilities are most likely to be
approached by polar bears. The majority
of Industry observations or bears occur
within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the coastline, as
bears use this area as travel corridors.
Bears traversing along the coastline can
encounter Industry facilities located on
the coast, such as CPAI and Eni
facilities at Oliktok Point and the Point
Thomson development. As bears contact
these facilities, the chances for bear/
human interactions increase. The
Endicott and West Dock causeways, as
well as the facilities supporting them,
have the potential to act as barriers to
movements of polar bears because they
extend continuously from the coastline
to the offshore facility. However, polar
bears appear to have little or no fear of
manmade structures and can easily
climb and cross gravel roads and
causeways, and polar bears have
frequently been observed crossing
existing roads and causeways in the
Prudhoe Bay oilfields. Offshore
production facilities, such as Northstar,
may be approached by polar bears, but
due to the layout of these facilities (i.e.,
continuous sheet pile walls around the
perimeter) and monitoring plans, the
bears may not gain access to the facility
itself. This situation may present a
small-scale, local obstruction to the
bears’ movement, but it also minimizes
the likelihood of bear/human
encounters.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
3. Human Encounters
Whenever humans work in polar bear
habitat, there is a chance of an
encounter, even though, historically,
such encounters have been uncommon
in association with Industry. Encounters
can be dangerous for both polar bears
and humans.
Although bears may be found along
the coast during open-water periods,
most of the SBS bear stock inhabits the
multiyear pack ice during this time of
year. Encounters are more likely to
occur during fall and winter periods
when greater numbers of the bears are
found in the coastal environment
searching for food and possibly den
sites later in the season. Potentially
dangerous encounters are most likely to
occur at gravel islands or at on-ice
exploratory sites. These sites are at ice
level and are easily accessible by polar
bears. Industry has developed and uses
devices to aid in detecting polar bears,
including bear monitors and motion
detection systems. In addition, some
companies take steps to actively prevent
bears from accessing facilities using
safety gates and fences.
Offshore production islands, such as
the Northstar production facility, may
attract polar bears. In 2004, Northstar
accounted for 41 percent of all polar
bear observations Industry-wide.
Northstar reported 37 sightings, in
which 54 polar bears were observed.
The offshore sites continue to account
for the majority of the polar bear
observations. The offshore facilities of
Endicott, Liberty, Northstar, and
Oooguruk accounted for 47 percent of
the bear observations between 2005 and
2008 (182 of 390 sightings). It should be
noted that, although most bears were
observed passing through the area, the
sites may also serve as an attractant,
which could result in increased
incidence of harassment of bears.
Employee training and company
policies currently reduce and mitigate
such encounters.
Depending upon the circumstances,
bears can be either repelled from or
attracted to sounds, smells, or sights
associated with Industry activities. In
the past, such interactions have been
mitigated through conditions on the
LOA, which require the applicant to
develop a polar bear interaction plan for
each operation. These plans outline the
steps the applicant will take, such as
garbage disposal procedures, to
minimize impacts to polar bears by
reducing the attraction of Industry
activities to polar bears. Interaction
plans also outline the chain of
command for responding to a polar bear
sighting. In addition to interaction
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
plans, Industry personnel participate in
polar bear interaction training while on
site.
Employee training programs are
designed to educate field personnel
about the dangers of bear encounters
and to implement safety procedures in
the event of a bear sighting. As a result
of these polar bear interaction plans and
training programs, on-site personnel can
detect bears and respond safely and
appropriately. Often, personnel are
instructed to leave an area where bears
are seen. Many times polar bears are
monitored until they move out of the
area. Sometimes, this response involves
deterring the bear from the site. If bears
are reluctant to leave on their own, in
most cases bears can be displaced by
using pyrotechnics (e.g., cracker shells)
or other forms of deterrents (e.g.,
vehicle, vehicle horn, vehicle siren,
vehicle lights, spot lights). The purpose
of these plans and training is to
eliminate the potential for injury to
personnel or lethal take of bears in
defense of human life. Since the
regulations went into effect in 1993,
there has been no known instances of a
bear being killed or Industry personnel
being injured by a bear as a result of
Industry activities. The mitigation
measures associated with these
regulations have been proven to
minimize bear/human interactions and
will continue to be requirements of
future LOAs, as appropriate.
There is the potential for humans to
come into contact with polar bear dens
as well. Known polar bear dens around
the oilfield, discovered
opportunistically or as a result of
planned surveys, such as tracking
marked bears or den detection surveys,
are monitored by the Service. However,
these sites are only a small percentage
of the total active polar bear dens for the
SBS stock in any given year. Industry
routinely coordinates with the Service
to determine the location of Industry’s
activities relative to known dens and
denning habitat. General LOA
provisions require Industry operations
to avoid known polar bear dens by 1.6
km (1 mi).
There is the possibility that an
unknown den may be encountered
during Industry activities as well.
Between 2002 and 2010, six previously
unknown maternal polar bear dens were
encountered by Industry during the
course of project activities. Once a
previously unknown den is identified
by Industry, the Service requires that
the den be reported, triggering
mitigation measures per response plans.
Communication between Industry and
the Service and the implementation of
mitigation measures, such as the 1.6-km
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(1-mi) exclusion area around the nowknown den and 24-hour monitoring of
the site, ensures that disturbance is
minimized.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
4. Effect on Prey Species
Ringed seals are the primary prey of
polar bears in the Beaufort Sea and
inhabit the nearshore waters where
offshore Industry activities occur.
Industry will mainly have an effect on
seals through the potential for
contamination (oil spills) or industrial
noise disturbance. Effects of
contamination from oil discharges for
seals are described in the following
section, ‘‘Potential Impacts of Waste
Product Discharge and Oil Spills on
Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears,’’
under the ‘‘Pacific Walrus’’ subsection.
Studies have shown that seals can be
displaced from certain areas such as
pupping lairs or haulouts and abandon
breathing holes near Industry activity.
However, these disturbances appear to
have minor effects and are short term.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on
Polar Bears
The Service anticipates that potential
impacts of Industry noise, physical
obstructions, and human encounters on
polar bears would be limited to shortterm changes in behavior and should
have no long-term impact on
individuals and no impacts on the polar
bear population.
Potential impacts will be mitigated
through various requirements stipulated
within LOAs. Mitigation measures
required for all projects will include a
polar bear and/or walrus interaction
plan and a record of communication
with affected villages that may serve as
the precursor to a POC with the village
to mitigate effects of the project on
subsistence activities. Mitigation
measures that may be used on a case-bycase basis include the use of trained
marine mammal monitors associated
with marine activities, the use of den
habitat maps developed by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), the use of
FLIR or polar bear scent-trained dogs to
determine the presence or absence of
dens, timing of the activity to limit
disturbance around dens, the 1.6-km (1mi) buffer surrounding known dens, and
suggested work actions around known
dens. The Service implements certain
mitigation measures based on need and
effectiveness for specific activities based
largely on timing and location. For
example, the Service will implement
different mitigation measures for a 2month-long exploration project 30 km
(approximately 20 mi) inland from the
coast than for an annual nearshore
development project in shallow waters.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Based on past monitoring information,
bears are more prevalent in the coastal
areas than at such distances inland and,
therefore, there may be differences in
monitoring and mitigation measures
required by the Service to limit the
disturbance to bears and to limit
human/bear interactions.
The Service manages Industry
activities occurring in polar bear
denning habitat by applying proactive
and reactive mitigation measures to
limit Industry impact to denning bears.
Proactive mitigation measures are
actions taken to limit den site exposure
to Industry activities in denning habitat
before den locations are known. They
include the requirement of a polar bear
interaction plan, possible den detection
surveys, and polar bear awareness and
safety training. Reactive mitigation
measures are actions taken to minimize
Industry impact to polar bear dens once
the locations have been identified. They
can include applying the 1.6-km (1-mi)
buffer around the den site and 24-hour
monitoring of the den site.
An example of the application of this
process would be in the case of Industry
activities occurring around a known
bear den, where a standard condition of
LOAs requires Industry projects to have
developed a polar bear interaction plan
and to maintain a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer
between Industry activities and any
known denning sites. In addition, we
may require Industry to avoid working
in known denning habitat until bears
have left their dens. To further reduce
the potential for disturbance to denning
females, we have conducted research, in
cooperation with Industry, to enable us
to accurately detect active polar bear
dens through the use of remote sensing
techniques, such as FLIR imagery, in
concert with maps of denning habitat
along the Beaufort Sea coast.
FLIR imagery, as a mitigation tool, is
used in connection with coastal polar
bear denning habitat maps. Industry
activity areas, such as coastal ice roads,
are compared to polar bear denning
habitat, and transects are then created to
survey the specific habitat within the
Industry area. FLIR heat signatures
within a standardized den location
protocol are noted, and further
mitigation measures are placed around
these locations. FLIR surveys are more
effective at detecting polar bear dens
than are visual observations. The
effectiveness increases when FLIR
surveys are combined with site-specific,
scent-trained dog surveys. These
techniques will continue to be required
as conditions of LOAs when
appropriate.
In addition, Industry has sponsored
cooperative research evaluating polar
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47027
bear hearing (resulting in the
development of polar bear audiograms);
the transmission of noise and vibration
through the ground, snow, ice, and air;
and the received levels of noise and
vibration in polar bear dens.
This information has been useful in
refining site-specific mitigation
measures. Using current mitigation
measures, Industry activities have had
no known polar bear population-level
effects during the period of previous
regulations. We anticipate that, with
continued mitigation measures, the
impacts to denning and non-denning
polar bears will be at the same low level
as in previous regulations.
Monitoring data suggest that the
number of polar bear encounters in the
oil fields fluctuates from year to year.
Polar bear observations by Industry
increased between 2004 and 2009 (89
bear observations in 2004 and 420 bear
observations in 2009). These
observations range from bears observed
from a distance and passively moving
through the area to bears that pose a
threat to personnel and are hazed for
their safety and the safety of Industry
personnel. This increase in observations
is believed to be due to increased
numbers of bears using terrestrial
habitat, an effort by Industry and the
Service to increase polar bear awareness
and safety among Industry personnel,
and an increase in the number of people
monitoring bear activities around the
facilities. Although bear observations
appear to have increased, bear/human
encounters remain uncommon events.
We anticipate that bear/human
encounters during the 5-year period of
these regulations will remain
uncommon.
Potential Impacts of Waste Product
Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
Individual walruses and polar bears
can potentially be affected by Industry
activities through waste product
discharge and oil spills. These potential
impacts are described below.
Polar bear and walrus ranges overlap
with many active and planned oil and
gas operations. Polar bears may be
susceptible to oil spills from platforms/
production facilities and pipelines in
both offshore and onshore habitat, while
walruses are susceptible to oil spills
from offshore facilities. To date, no
major offshore oil spills have occurred
in the Alaska Beaufort Sea. Some onshore spills have occurred on the North
Slope at production facilities or
pipelines connecting wells to the TransAlaska Pipeline System with no known
impacts to polar bears.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
47028
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Oil spills are unintentional releases of
oil or petroleum products. In
accordance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit
Program, all North Slope oil companies
must submit an oil spill contingency
plan. It is illegal to discharge oil into the
environment, and a reporting system
requires operators to report spills.
Between 1977 and 1999, an average of
70 oil and 234 waste product spills
occurred annually on the North Slope
oil fields. Although most spills have
been small (less than 50 barrels) by
Industry standards, larger spills (more
than 500 barrels) accounted for much of
the annual volume. Seven large spills
have occurred between 1985 and 2009
on the North Slope. The largest spill
occurred in the spring of 2006, when
approximately 984,000 liters (260,000
gallons) leaked from flow lines near an
oil gathering center. In November 2009,
a 174,000-liter (46,000-gallon) spill
occurred as well. These spills originated
in the terrestrial environment in heavily
industrialized areas not used by polar
bears or walrus and posed minimal
harm to walruses and polar bears. To
date, no major offshore spills have
occurred on the North Slope.
Spills of crude oil and petroleum
products associated with onshore
production facilities during ice-covered
and open-water seasons have been
minor. Larger spills are generally
production-related and could occur at
any production facility or pipeline
connecting wells to the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System. In addition to onshore
sites, oil spills could occur at offshore
facilities, such as causeway-linked
Endicott or the sub-sea pipeline-linked
Northstar Island. The trajectories of
large offshore spills from Northstar and
the proposed Liberty facilities have been
modeled and analyzed in past ITRs to
examine potential impacts to polar
bears.
Oil spills in the marine environment
that can accumulate at the ice edge, in
ice leads, and similar areas of
importance to polar bears and walruses
are of particular concern. As additional
offshore oil exploration and production
projects come on line, the potential for
large spills in the marine environment
increases.
During the open-water season, polar
bears could encounter oil if it is released
during exploratory operations, from
existing offshore platforms, or from a
marine vessel spill. Furthermore, the
shipping of crude oil or oil products
could also increase the likelihood of an
oil spill due to predicted reductions in
Arctic sea ice extent and improved
access to shipping lanes, where a
projected extended shipping season is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
expected to occur around the margins of
the Arctic Basin.
Spilled oil present in fall or spring
during formation or breakup of ice
presents a greater risk because of both
the difficulties associated with cleaning
oil in mixed, broken ice, and the
presence of bears and other wildlife in
prime feeding areas over the Continental
Shelf during this period. Oil spills
occurring in areas where polar bears are
concentrated, such as along off-shore
leads or polynyas, and along terrestrial
habitat where marine mammal carcasses
occur, such as at Cross and Barter
islands during fall whaling, would affect
more bears than spills in other areas.
Oiling of food sources, such as ringed
seals, may result in indirect effects on
polar bears, such as a local reduction in
ringed seal numbers, or a change in the
local distribution of seals and bears.
More direct effects on polar bears could
occur from: (1) Ingestion of oiled prey,
potentially resulting in reduced survival
of individual bears; (2) oiling of fur and
subsequent ingestion of oil from
grooming; and (3) disturbance, injury, or
death from interactions with humans
during oil spill response activities. Polar
bears may be particularly vulnerable to
disturbance when nutritionally stressed
and during denning. Cleanup operations
that disturb a den could result in the
death of cubs through abandonment,
and perhaps death of the sow as well.
In spring, females with cubs of the year
that denned near or on land and migrate
to offshore areas may encounter oil
(Stirling in Geraci and St. Aubin 1990).
In the event of an oil spill, Service–
approved response strategies are in
place to reduce the impact of a spill on
wildlife populations. Response efforts
will be conducted under a three-tier
approach characterized as: (1) Primary
response—involving containment,
dispersion, burning, or cleanup of oil;
(2) secondary response—involving
hazing, herding, preventative capture/
relocation, or additional methods to
remove or deter wildlife from affected or
potentially affected areas; and (3)
tertiary response—involving capture,
cleaning, treatment, and release of
wildlife. If the decision is made to
conduct response activities, primary
and secondary response options will be
vigorously applied, since little evidence
exists that tertiary methods will be
effective for cleaning oiled polar bears.
OCS operators are advised to review
the Service’s Oil Spill Response Plan for
Polar Bears in Alaska at (https://
www.fws.gov/Contaminants/
FWS_OSCP_05/
FWSContingencyTOC.htm) when
developing spill-response tactics.
Several factors will be considered when
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
responding to an oil spill. They include
the location of the spill, the magnitude
of the spill, oil viscosity and thickness,
accessibility to spill site, spill trajectory,
time of year, weather conditions (i.e.,
wind, temperature, precipitation),
environmental conditions (i.e., presence
and thickness of ice), number, age, and
sex of polar bears that are (or are likely
to be) affected, degree of contact,
importance of affected habitat, cleanup
proposal, and likelihood of bear/human
interactions.
The BOEMRE has acknowledged that
there are difficulties in effective oil-spill
response in broken-ice conditions, and
The National Academy of Sciences has
determined that ‘‘no current cleanup
methods remove more than a small
fraction of oil spilled in marine waters,
especially in the presence of broken
ice.’’ The BOEMRE advocates the use of
nonmechanical methods of spill
response, such as in-situ burning,
during periods when broken ice would
hamper an effective mechanical
response (MMS 2008b). An in situ burn
has the potential to rapidly remove large
quantities of oil and can be employed
when broken-ice conditions may
preclude mechanical response.
However, oil spill cleanup in the
broken-ice and open-water conditions
that characterize Arctic waters is
problematic.
Evaluation of Effects of Oil Spills
Pacific Walrus
As stated earlier, the Beaufort Sea is
not within the primary range for the
Pacific walrus; therefore, the probability
of walruses encountering oil or waste
products as a result of a spill from
Industry activities is low. Onshore oil
spills would not impact walruses unless
oil moved into the offshore
environment. In the event of a spill that
occurs during the open-water season, oil
in the water column could drift offshore
and possibly encounter a small number
of walruses. Oil spills from offshore
platforms could also contact walruses
under certain conditions. Spilled oil
during the ice-covered season not
cleaned up could become part of the ice
substrate and be eventually released
back into the environment during the
following open-water season. During
spring melt, oil would be collected by
spill response activities, but it could
eventually contact a limited number of
walruses.
Little is known about the effects of oil
specifically on walruses; no studies
have been conducted. Hypothetically,
walruses may react to oil much like
other pinnipeds. Adult walruses may
not be severely affected by the oil spill
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
through direct contact, but they will be
extremely sensitive to any habitat
disturbance by human noise and
response activities. In addition, due to
the gregarious nature of walruses, an oil
spill would most likely affect multiple
individuals in the area. Walruses may
also expose themselves more often to
the oil that has accumulated at the edge
of a contaminated shore or ice lead if
they repeatedly enter and exit the water.
Walrus calves are most likely to suffer
the effects of oil contamination. Female
walruses with calves are very attentive,
and the calf will stay close to its mother
at all times, including when the female
is foraging for food. Walrus calves can
swim almost immediately after birth
and will often join their mother in the
water. It is possible that an oiled calf
will be unrecognizable to its mother
either by sight or by smell, and be
abandoned. However, the greater threat
may come from an oiled calf that is
unable to swim away from the
contamination and a devoted mother
that will not leave without the calf,
resulting in the potential mortality of
both animals.
Walruses have thick skin and blubber
layers for insulation and very little hair.
Thus, they exhibit no grooming
behavior, which lessens their chance of
ingesting oil. Heat loss is regulated by
control of peripheral blood flow through
the animal’s skin and blubber. The
peripheral blood flow is decreased in
cold water and increased at warmer
temperatures. Direct exposure of
walruses to oil is not believed to have
any effect on the insulating capacity of
their skin and blubber, although it is
unknown if oil could affect their
peripheral blood flow.
Damage to the skin of pinnipeds can
occur from contact with oil because
some of the oil penetrates into the skin,
causing inflammation and the death of
some tissue. The dead tissue is
discarded, leaving behind an ulcer.
While these skin lesions have only
rarely been found on oiled seals, the
effects on walruses may be greater
because of a lack of hair to protect the
skin. Direct exposure to oil can also
result in conjunctivitis. Like other
pinnipeds, walruses are susceptible to
oil contamination in their eyes.
Continuous exposure to oil will quickly
cause permanent eye damage.
Inhalation of hydrocarbon fumes
presents another threat to marine
mammals. In studies conducted on
pinnipeds, pulmonary hemorrhage,
inflammation, congestion, and nerve
damage resulted after exposure to
concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a
period of 24 hours. If the walruses were
also under stress from molting,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
pregnancy, etc., the increased heart rate
associated with the stress would
circulate the hydrocarbons more
quickly, lowering the tolerance
threshold for ingestion or inhalation.
Walruses are benthic feeders, and
much of the benthic prey contaminated
by an oil spill would be killed
immediately. Benthic organisms that
survived would become contaminated
from oil in bottom sediments, possibly
resulting in slower growth and a
decrease in reproduction. Bivalve
mollusks, a favorite prey species of the
walrus, are not effective at processing
hydrocarbon compounds, resulting in
highly concentrated accumulations and
long-term retention of the
contamination within the organism. In
addition, because walruses feed
primarily on mollusks, they may be
more vulnerable to a loss of this prey
species than other pinnipeds that feed
on a larger variety of prey. Furthermore,
complete recovery of a bivalve mollusk
population may take 10 years or more,
forcing walruses to find other food
resources or to move to nontraditional
areas.
The small number of walruses in the
Beaufort Sea and the low potential for
a large oil spill, which is discussed in
the following Risk Assessment Analysis,
limit potential impacts to walruses to
only certain events (a large oil spill) and
then only to a limited number of
individuals. In the unlikely event that
there is an oil spill and walruses in the
same area, mitigation measures,
especially those to deflect and deter
animals from spilled areas, would
minimize any effect. Fueling crews have
personnel that are trained to handle
operational spills and contain them. If a
small offshore spill occurs, spill
response vessels are stationed in close
proximity and respond immediately. A
detailed discussion of oil spill
prevention and response for walruses
can be found at the following Web site:
(https://www.fws.gov/Contaminants/
FWS_OSCP_05/
fwscontingencyappendices/LWildlifePlans/WalrusWRP.doc).
Polar Bear
The possibility of oil and waste
product spills from Industry activities
and their subsequent impacts on polar
bears are a major concern. Polar bears
could encounter oil spills during the
open-water and ice-covered seasons in
offshore or onshore habitats. Although
the majority of the SBS polar bear
population spends much of its time
offshore on the pack ice, some bears are
likely to encounter oil regardless of the
season or location in which a spill
occurs.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47029
Small spills of oil or waste products
throughout the year could potentially
impact small numbers of bears. The
effects of fouling fur or ingesting oil or
wastes, depending on the amount of oil
or wastes involved, could be short term
or result in death. For example, in April
1988, a dead polar bear was found on
Leavitt Island, approximately 9.3 km (5
nautical mi) northeast of Oliktok Point.
The cause of death was determined to
be poisoning by a mixture that included
ethylene glycol and Rhodamine B dye.
While the bear’s death was humancaused, the source of the mixture was
unknown.
During the ice-covered season,
mobile, non-denning bears would have
a higher probability of encountering oil
or other production wastes than nonmobile, denning females. Current
management practices by Industry, such
as requiring the proper use, storage, and
disposal of hazardous materials,
minimize the potential occurrence of
such incidents. In the event of an oil
spill, it is also likely that polar bears
would be intentionally hazed to keep
them away from the area, further
reducing the likelihood of impacting the
population.
In 1980, Canadian scientists
performed experiments that studied the
effects on polar bears of exposure to oil.
Effects on experimentally oiled polar
bears (where bears were forced to
remain in oil for prolonged periods of
time) included acute inflammation of
the nasal passages, marked epidermal
responses, anemia, anorexia, and
biochemical changes indicative of
stress, renal impairment, and death.
Many effects did not become evident
until several weeks after the experiment
(Oritsland et al. 1981).
Oiling of the pelt causes significant
thermoregulatory problems by reducing
the insulation value. Irritation or
damage to the skin by oil may further
contribute to impaired
thermoregulation.
Experiments on live polar bears and
pelts showed that the thermal value of
the fur decreased significantly after
oiling, and oiled bears showed
increased metabolic rates and elevated
skin temperature. Oiled bears are also
likely to ingest oil as they groom to
restore the insulation value of the oiled
fur.
Oil ingestion by polar bears through
consumption of contaminated prey, and
by grooming or nursing, could have
pathological effects, depending on the
amount of oil ingested and the
individual’s physiological state. Death
could occur if a large amount of oil were
ingested or if volatile components of oil
were aspirated into the lungs. Indeed,
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
47030
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
two of three bears died in the Canadian
experiment, and it was suspected that
the ingestion of oil was a contributing
factor to the deaths. Experimentally
oiled bears ingested much oil through
grooming. Much of it was eliminated by
vomiting and in the feces; some was
absorbed and later found in body fluids
and tissues.
Ingestion of sublethal amounts of oil
can have various physiological effects
on a polar bear, depending on whether
the animal is able to excrete or detoxify
the hydrocarbons. Petroleum
hydrocarbons irritate or destroy
epithelial cells lining the stomach and
intestine, thereby affecting motility,
digestion, and absorption.
Polar bears swimming in, or walking
adjacent to, an oil spill could inhale
petroleum vapors. Vapor inhalation by
polar bears could result in damage to
various systems, such as the respiratory
and the central nervous systems,
depending on the amount of exposure.
Oil may also affect food sources of
polar bears. Seals that die as a result of
an oil spill could be scavenged by polar
bears. Consumption of contaminated
carcasses would increase exposure of
the bears to hydrocarbons and could
result in death or reduced survival of
individual bears. A local reduction in
ringed seal numbers as a result of direct
or indirect effects of oil could
temporarily affect the local distribution
of polar bears. A reduction in the
density of seals as a direct result of
mortality from contact with spilled oil
could result in polar bears not using a
particular area for hunting. Possible
impacts from the loss of a food source
include reduced recruitment and/or
survival.
Spilled oil also can concentrate and
accumulate in leads and openings that
occur during spring break-up and
autumn freeze-up periods. Such
concentrations of spilled oil increase the
chance that polar bears and their
principal prey would be oiled. To access
ringed and bearded seals, polar bears in
the SBS concentrate in shallow waters
less that 300 m (984 ft) deep over the
continental shelf and in areas with
greater than 50 percent ice cover
(Durner et al. 2004).
Due to their seasonal use of nearshore
habitat, the times of greatest impact
from an oil spill on polar bears are
likely the open-water and broken-ice
periods (summer and fall). Distributions
of polar bears are not uniform through
time. Nearshore and offshore polar bear
densities are greatest in fall, and polar
bear use of coastal areas during the fall
open-water period has increased in
recent years in the Beaufort Sea. This
change in distribution has been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
correlated with the distance to the pack
ice at that time of year (i.e., the farther
from shore the leading edge of the pack
ice is, the more bears are observed
onshore). An analysis of data collected
2001–2005 during the fall open-water
period concluded: (1) On average
approximately 4 percent of the
estimated 1,526 polar bears in the
Southern Beaufort population were
observed onshore in the fall; (2) 80
percent of bears onshore occurred
within 15 km (9.3 mi) of subsistenceharvested bowhead whale carcasses,
where large congregations of polar bears
have been observed feeding; and (3) seaice conditions affected the number of
bears on land and the duration of time
they spent there (Schliebe et al. 2006).
Hence, bears concentrated in areas
where beach-cast marine mammal
carcasses occur during the fall would
likely be more susceptible to oiling.
The persistence of toxic subsurface oil
and chronic exposures, even at
sublethal levels, can have long-term
effects on wildlife (Peterson et al. 2003).
Although it may be true that small
numbers of bears may be affected by an
oil spill initially, the long-term impact
could be much greater. Long-term oil
effects could be substantial through
interactions between natural
environmental stressors and the
compromised health of exposed
animals, and through chronic, toxic
exposure as a result of bioaccumulation.
Polar bears are biological sinks for
pollutants because they are the apical
predator of the Arctic ecosystem and are
also opportunistic scavengers of other
marine mammals. Additionally, their
diet is composed mostly of high-fat
sealskin and blubber (Norstrom et al.
1988). The highest concentrations of
persistent organic pollutants in Arctic
marine mammals have been found in
polar bears and seal-eating walruses
near Svalbard (Norstrom et al. 1988,
Andersen et al. 2001, Muir et al. 1999).
As such, polar bears would be
susceptible to the effects of
bioaccumulation of contaminants
associated with spilled oil, which could
affect the bears’ reproduction, survival,
and immune systems. Sublethal,
chronic effects of any oil spill may
further suppress the recovery of polar
bear populations due to reduced fitness
of surviving animals.
Subadult polar bears are more
vulnerable than adults to environmental
effects (Taylor et al. 1987). Subadult
polar bears would be most prone to the
lethal and sublethal effects of an oil
spill due to their proclivity for
scavenging (thus increased exposure to
oiled marine mammals) and their
inexperience in hunting. Because of the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
greater maternal investment a weaned
subadult represents, reduced survival
rates of subadult polar bears have a
greater impact on population growth
rate and sustainable harvest than
reduced litter production rates (Taylor
et al. 1987).
To date, large oil spills from Industry
activities in the Beaufort Sea and coastal
regions that would impact polar bears
have not occurred, although the interest
in, and the development of, offshore
hydrocarbon reservoirs has increased
the potential for large offshore oil spills.
With limited background information
available regarding oil spills in the
Arctic environment, the outcome of
such a spill is uncertain. For example,
in the event of a large spill (e.g., 5,900
barrels (equal to a rupture in the
Northstar pipeline and a complete drain
of the subsea portion of the pipeline),
oil would be influenced by seasonal
weather and sea conditions, including
temperature, winds, wave action, and
currents. Weather and sea conditions
also affect the type of equipment needed
for spill response and the effectiveness
of spill cleanup. Based on the
experiences of cleanup efforts following
the Exxon Valdez oil spill, where
logistical support was readily available,
spill response may be largely
unsuccessful in open-water conditions.
Indeed, spill response drills have been
unsuccessful in the cleanup of oil in
broken-ice conditions.
The major concern regarding large oil
spills is the impact a spill would have
on the survival and recruitment of the
SBS polar bear population. Currently,
this bear population is approximately
1,500 bears. The maximum sustainable
subsistence harvest is now 70 bears for
this population (divided between
Canada and Alaska). The population
may be able to sustain the additional
mortality caused by a large oil spill if a
small number of bears are killed;
however, the effect of numerous bear
deaths due to the direct or indirect
effects from a large oil spill would be
additive to the effect of the subsistence
harvest, likely resulting in reduced
population recruitment and survival.
Indirect effects may occur through a
local reduction in seal productivity or
the scavenging of oiled seal carcasses, or
through other potential impacts, both
natural and human-induced. The
removal of a large number of bears from
the population would exceed
sustainable levels, potentially causing a
decline in the bear population and
affecting bear productivity and
subsistence use.
Evaluation of the potential impacts of
Industry waste products and oil spills
suggests that individual bears could be
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
impacted by the disturbances (Oritsland
et al. 1981). Depending on the amount
of oil or wastes involved and the timing
and location of a spill, impacts could be
short-term, chronic, or lethal. In order
for bear reproduction or survival to be
impacted at the population level, a
large-volume oil spill would have to
take place. The following section
analyzes the likelihood and potential
effects of such a large-volume oil spill.
Oil Spill Risk Assessment: Potential
Impacts to Polar Bears From a Large Oil
Spill in the Beaufort Sea
Potential adverse impacts to polar
bears and Pacific walruses from a large
oil spill as a result of industrial
activities in the Beaufort Sea are a major
concern. As part of the incidental take
regulatory process, the Service evaluates
potential impacts of oil spills within the
regulation area, even though the MMPA
does not authorize the incidental take of
marine mammals as the result of illegal
actions, such as oil spills. Any event
that results in a lethal outcome to a
marine mammal is not authorized under
this rule.
In this section, we provide a
qualitative assessment of the likelihood
that polar bears may be oiled by a large
oil spill. We considered: (1) The
probability of a large oil spill occurring
in the Beaufort Sea; (2) the probability
of that oil spill impacting nearshore
coastal polar bear habitat; (3) the
probability of polar bears being in the
area and coming into contact with that
large oil spill; and (4) the number of
polar bears that could potentially be
impacted by the spill. The majority of
the information in this evaluation is
qualitative; however, it is clear that the
probability of all of these events
occurring sequentially in a manner that
impacts polar bears in the Beaufort Sea
is low.
The analysis was based on polar bear
distribution and habitat use from four
sources of information that, when
combined, allowed us to make
conclusions on the risk of oil spills to
polar bears. This information included:
(1) The description of existing offshore
oil and gas production facilities,
particularly information pertinent to an
oil spill originating from those facilities;
(2) the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and
Enforcement (BOEMRE) Oil-Spill Risk
Analysis (OSRA) for the Beaufort Sea
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which
allowed us to qualitatively analyze the
risk to polar bears and their habitat from
a marine oil spill; (3) the most recent
polar bear risk assessment from the
previous ITRs; and (4) polar bear
distribution information from Service-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
supported polar bear aerial coastal
surveys from 2000 to present. When
taken separately, each piece of
information tells only a part of the story,
but with this assessment we combine
pertinent information from multiple
sources and create a qualitative
assessment of the potential impacts to
polar bears from a large oil spill.
There is increasing interest in
developing offshore oil and gas reserves
in the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi seas,
where the estimate of recoverable oil is
up to approximately 19 billion barrels
(BOEMRE 2010a). Development of
offshore production facilities with
supporting pipelines increases the
potential for large offshore spills. The
probability of a large oil spill from an
offshore oil and gas facility and the risk
to polar bears is a scenario that has been
considered in previous regulations (71
FR 43926; August 2, 2006). With the
limited background information
available regarding the effects of large
oil spills on polar bears in the marine
Arctic environment, the impact of a
large oil spill is uncertain. As far as is
known, polar bears have not been
affected by oil spilled as a result of
North Slope industrial activities to date.
As previously noted, walruses are rare
in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, they are
unlikely to encounter oil spills there,
and were not considered in this
analysis. Only polar bears were
considered for this analysis. In order to
effectively evaluate how a large oil spill
may affect polar bears, we considered
the following factors in developing our
oil spill assessment for polar bears:
1. The origin (location) of a large spill;
2. The volume of a spill;
3. Oil viscosity;
4. Accessibility to spill site;
5. Spill trajectory;
6. Time of year;
7. Weather conditions (i.e., wind,
temperature, precipitation);
8. Environmental conditions (i.e.,
presence and thickness of ice);
9. Number, age, and sex of polar bears
that are (or likely to be) affected;
10. Degree of contact;
11. Importance of affected habitat; and
12. Mitigation measures to prevent
bears from encountering spilled oil.
Description of Offshore Oil and Gas
Facilities
Currently, there are three offshore oil
and gas facilities producing oil in State
waters of the Beaufort Sea: Endicott,
Northstar, and Oooguruk. Two more,
Liberty and Nikaitchuq, are expected to
commence production during the 5-year
period analyzed for these regulations.
The production facilities are described
generally earlier in these regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47031
Here we describe the characteristics
relevant to an oil spill risk assessment.
Endicott and Liberty
The Endicott oilfield is located
approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast
of Prudhoe Bay. It is the oldest offshore
facility, beginning production in 1986.
The main production island for Endicott
is located approximately 5 km (3 mi)
offshore in approximately 3 m (10 ft) of
water. Endicott is connected to the
mainland by a causeway.
The Liberty field is currently under
development; the current project
concept is to use ultra-extended-reach
drilling technology to access the Liberty
reservoir from existing facilities at the
Endicott Satellite Drilling Island (SDI),
located approximately 4 km (2.5 mi)
from shore in 3 m (10 ft) of water. The
SDI is connected to the mainland by a
common causeway with Endicott. The
two facilities are approximately 8 km (5
mi) apart. Endicott and Liberty oils are
medium-weight viscous crudes with
American Petroleum Institute (API)
gravities of 24 and 27 degrees (°),
respectively. For the purposes of this
analysis, due to their close proximity
and their being connected by a common
causeway, we considered the two
facilities a complex.
Northstar
The Northstar oilfield is located 10
km (6 mi) from Prudhoe Bay in
approximately 10 m (40 ft) of water. It
began producing oil in 2001. Northstar
oil is transported from a gravel island to
shore via a 10-km (6-mi) subsea pipeline
buried in a trench in the sea floor.
Northstar crude is a light low-viscosity
oil with an API gravity of 42°. Of the
existing offshore facilities, Northstar is
located the farthest from shore.
Oooguruk
The Oooguruk Unit is located
adjacent to the Kuparuk River Unit in
shallow waters of Harrison Bay. An
offshore gravel island was constructed
in 2006 on State of Alaska leases. A
subsea pipeline was constructed to
transfer produced fluids 9.2 km (5.7 mi)
from the offshore gravel island to shore.
Oooguruk began production in 2008.
The Oooguruk development has targeted
two separate reservoirs from a single
offshore drill site. The principal
reservoir is the Nuiqsut, which contains
heavy to medium viscosity oil with 19–
25° API gravity. The secondary reservoir
is the Kuparuk C sandstone, which
contains medium viscosity oil ranging
from 24–26° API gravity. Oooguruk is
located in shallow water less than 3 m
(10 ft) southeast of Thetis Island in the
Colville River outflow.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47032
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Nikaitchuq
The offshore portion of Nikaitchuq,
the Spy Island Development, is located
south of the barrier islands of the Jones
Island group. The Spy Island
Development is located in shallow
water (less than 10 feet). Onshore
facilities for the Nikaitchuq Unit are
located at Oliktok Point and at an
offshore gravel island near Spy Island,
6.4 km (4 mi) north of Oliktok Point.
The offshore pad is located in shallow
water 3 meters (10 feet) deep. Oil from
the Nikaitchuq prospect is a heavy
crude from the Schrader Bluff
formation, sometimes with sand in it,
found in a shallow reservoir less than
1,200 m (4,000 ft). The wells require an
electrical submersible pump to produce
oil because they are not capable of
unassisted flow. The flow can be
stopped by turning off the pump. Oil
production at Nikaitchuq began
production in 2011.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Large Oil Spill Analysis
The oil-spill scenario for this analysis
considers the potential impacts from
large oil spills resulting from oil
production at the four developments
described above. We define large oil
spills as greater than or equal to 1,000
barrels. Estimating a large oil-spill
occurrence is accomplished by
examining a wide variety of
probabilities. Uncertainty exists
regarding the number, location, and size
of a large oil spill or spills and the wind,
ice, and current conditions at the time
of a spill, but we have made every effort
to identify the most likely spill
scenarios and sources of risk to polar
bears.
In order to analyze oil spill impacts to
polar bears from the offshore sites, we
incorporated both quantitative and
anecdotal information. The quantitative
assessment of oil spill risk for the
current request for incidental take
regulations considered: (1) Conditional
oil spill probabilities from offshore
production sites, reflected primarily in
BOEMRE’s OSRA; and (2) oil spill
trajectory models and their relation to a
polar bear distribution model.
Conditional probabilities analysis
assumes that a large spill has occurred
and that no cleanup takes place. The
probability of a spill occurring would be
different for each site depending upon
oil type, depth, oil flow rates, etc. The
analysis included information from the
BOEMRE OSRA in regard to polar bear
environmental resource areas (ERAs)
and land segments (LSs), reviewed
previous risk assessment information of
polar bears in prior ITRs, and analyzed
polar bear distribution using the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Service’s coastal survey data for 2000 to
present.
BOEMRE Oil Spill Risk Analysis
Because the BOEMRE OSRA provides
the most current and rigorous treatment
of potential oil spills in the Beaufort
Sea, our analysis of potential oil spill
impacts applied the BOEMRE’s most
recent OSRA (MMS 2008a) to help
analyze potential impacts of a large oil
spill originating in the OCS to polar
bears. The OSRA is a computer model
that analyzes how and where large
offshore spills will likely move (Smith
et al. 1982). To estimate the likely
trajectory of large oil spills, the OSRA
model used information about the
physical environment, including data
on wind, sea ice, and currents. As a
conditional model, the OSRA is a
hypothetical analysis of an oil spill. It
is important to note that the OSRA
assumes that a spill has occurred; it
does not analyze the likelihood of an oil
spill event.
The BOEMRE OSRA model was
developed for the Federal offshore
waters and does not include analysis of
oil spills in the State of Alaska
(controlled, nearshore waters).
Northstar, Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, and
the Endicott/Liberty complex are
located in nearshore, State waters.
Northstar has one Federal well, and
Liberty is a Federal reservoir developed
from State lands. Although the OSRA
cannot calculate trajectories of oil spills
originating from specific locations in the
nearshore area, it can be used to help
examine how habitat may be affected by
a spill should one originate in the OCS.
We can then compare the location of the
affected habitat to habitat use by bears.
Large Spill Size and Source
Assumptions
As stated in Appendix A of the Arctic
Multi-sale DEIS (MMS 2008b), large
spills are those spills of 1,000 barrels or
more and are assumed to persist on the
water long enough to allow a trajectory
analysis. Persistence depends upon
weather, weight of oil, success of
cleanup, etc. The model predicted
where the oil trajectory would go if the
oil persisted as a slick at a particular
time of year. Spills smaller than 1,000
barrels would not be expected to persist
on the water long enough to warrant a
trajectory analysis. For this reason, we
only analyzed the effects of a large oil
spill. Although no large spills from oil
and gas activities have occurred on the
Alaska OCS to date, the large spill-size
assumptions used by BOEMRE were
based on the reported spills from oil
exploration and production in the Gulf
of Mexico and Pacific OCS regions.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
BOEMRE used the median spill size in
the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS
from 1985–1999 as the likely large spill
size for analysis purposes. The median
size of a large crude oil spill from a
pipeline from 1985–1999 on the U.S.
OCS was 4,600 barrels, and the average
was 6,700 barrels (Anderson and
LaBelle 2000). The median large spill
size for a platform on the OCS over the
entire record from 1964–1999 is 1,500
barrels, and the average is 3,300 barrels
(Anderson and LaBelle 2000).
In addition, in their analysis the
BOEMRE estimated that large spills are
more likely to occur during
development and production than
during exploration in the Arctic (MMS
2008a). The OSRA model estimated that
the statistical mean number of large
spills is less than one over the 20-year
life of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable developments in the
Beaufort Sea (MMS 2008, Table 4.3.2–
1). Our oil spill assessment during a 5year regulatory period was predicated
on the same assumptions.
BOEMRE still considers large oil spill
estimates for the DEIS of the Beaufort
Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas to
be valid despite the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill event in the summer of 2010.
The specifics of the Deepwater Horizon
incident are still under investigation.
However, geologic and other conditions
in the Arctic OCS are substantially
different from those in the Gulf of
Mexico, including much shallower well
depth and the resulting lower pressures,
such that BOEMRE currently does not
believe that the Deepwater Horizon
incident serves as a predictor for the
likelihood or magnitude of a very large
oil spill event in the Beaufort Sea.
Currently, BOEMRE is working on a
very large spill estimate for the Arctic
OCS in regard to a new methodology
developed for ‘‘Notice to Lessees (NTL)
No. 2010–N06,’’ which rescinded the
limitations set forth in 2008 regarding
the information lessees and operators
were required to provide to MMS (now
BOEMRE) on blowout and worst-case
discharge scenarios. However,
considering the small number of
exploratory wells that have occurred in
the Beaufort Sea OCS (31 wells since
1982 [BOEMRE 2010b]), the low rate of
exploratory drilling blowouts per well
drilled, and the low rate of well control
incidents that spill fluids, it is
reasonable to conclude that the chance
of a large spill occurring during OCS
exploration drilling in the Beaufort Sea
is very small. In addition, it is important
to note that Industry does not plan to
conduct drilling operations at more than
three exploration sites in the Beaufort
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47033
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
spills occurring during the period of
these regulations on the Alaskan OCS
from production activities is low, for the
purposes of our analysis, we assume
that a large spill will occur in order to
evaluate potential impacts to polar
bears. The BOEMRE OSRA model
analyzes the likely paths of more than
two million simulated oil spills in
relation to the shoreline and biological,
physical, and sociocultural resource
areas specific to the Beaufort Sea, which
are generically called environmental
resource areas (ERAs) or land segments
(LSs). The chance that a large oil spill
will contact a specific ERA of concern
within a given time of travel from a
certain location (launch area or pipeline
segment) is termed a conditional
probability. Conditional probabilities
assume that no cleanup activities take
place and that there are no efforts to
contain the spill. We used the BOEMRE
OSRA analysis from the Arctic Multisale DEIS to estimate the conditional
probabilities of a large spill contacting
sensitive ERAs pertinent to polar bears.
and PL 12, from Appendix A of the
Arctic Multi-sale DEIS (Map A.1–4) to
represent the oil spills moving from
hypothetical offshore areas. These LAs
and PLs were selected because of their
close proximity to current offshore
facilities.
Oil-Spill Persistence
Sea OCS for the duration of the 5-year
regulatory period.
Between 1971 and 2007, OCS
operators have produced almost 15
billion barrels of oil in the United
States. During this period, there were
2,645 spills that totaled approximately
164,100 barrels spilled (equal to 0.001
percent of barrels produced), or about 1
barrel spilled for every 91,400 barrels
produced. Between 1993 and 2007, the
most recent 15-year period analyzed,
almost 7.5 billion barrels of oil were
produced. During this period, there
were 651 spills that totaled
approximately 47,800 barrels spilled
(equal to 0.0006 percent of barrels
produced), or approximately 1 barrel
spilled for every 156,900 barrels
produced. These numbers will be
updated once a final determination of
the volume from the Deepwater Horizon
spill is adopted.
Within the duration of the previous
ITRs, two large onshore terrestrial oil
spills occurred as a result of pipeline
failures. In the spring of 2006,
approximately 6,200 barrels of crude oil
spilled from a corroded pipeline
operated by BP Exploration (Alaska).
The spill impacted approximately 8,100
square meters (2 acres). In November
2009, a spill of approximately 1,150
barrels occurred from a ‘‘common line’’
carrying oil, water, and natural gas
operated by BP, impacting
approximately 780 square meters (8,400
square feet). Neither spill was known to
have impacted polar bears, in part due
to their locations (both sites were within
or near industrial facilities not
frequented by bears) and timing (polar
bears are not typically observed in the
affected areas during the time of the
spills and subsequent cleanup).
Analysis of the Conditional Probability
Results
How long an oil spill persists on
water or on the shoreline can vary,
depending upon the size of the oil spill,
the environmental conditions at the
time of the spill, and the substrate of the
shoreline. In its large oil spill analysis,
BOEMRE assumed that 1,500-barrel and
4,600-barrel spills could last up to 30
days on the water as a coherent slick,
based on oil weathering properties and
dispersal data specific to North Slope
crude oils. Therefore, we assumed that
winter spills (October–June) could last
up to 180 days as a coherent slick (i.e.,
if a coherent slick were to freeze into ice
over winter, it would melt out as a slick
in spring).
We used three BOEMRE launch areas
(LAs), LA 8, LA 10, LA 12, and three
pipeline segments (PLs), PL 10, PL 11,
Trajectory Estimates of a Large Offshore
Oil Spill
Although it is reasonable to conclude
that the chance of one or more large
Oil-Spill-Trajectory Model Assumptions
For purposes of its oil spill trajectory
simulation, BOEMRE made the
following assumptions:
• All spills occur instantaneously;
• Large oil spills occur in the
hypothetical launch areas or along the
hypothetical pipeline segments noted
above;
• Large spills do not weather for
purposes of trajectory analysis.
Weathering is calculated separately;
• The model does not simulate
cleanup scenarios. The oil spill
trajectories move as though no-oil-spill
response action is taken; and
• Large oil spills stop when they
contact the mainland coastline.
As noted above, the chance that a
large oil spill will contact a specific
ERA of concern within a given time of
travel from a certain location (LA or PL)
assuming a large spill occurs and that
no cleanup takes place is termed a
conditional probability. From the DEIS,
Appendix A, we chose ERAs and Land
Segments (LSs) to represent areas of
concern pertinent to polar bears (MMS
2008a). Those ERAs and LSs, and the
conditional probabilities that a large oil
spill originating from the launch areas
or pipelines chosen are presented in
Table 1. From Table 1 we noted the
highest chance of contact and the range
of chances of contact that could occur
should a large spill occur from launch
areas or pipeline segments.
TABLE 1—CONDITIONAL OIL SPILL PROBABILITIES (PERCENT) IN REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AREAS (ERAS)
AND LAND SEGMENTS (LSS) FOR LAUNCH AREAS (LAS) AND PIPELINES (PLS) OFFSHORE OF FOUR OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY SITES. VALUES IN PARENTHESES ARE FOR PIPELINE SEGMENTS
[* = Less than one-half percent.]
Season
of spill
(duration
of spill)
LA 08 (PL 10)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Launch area
(pipeline segment)
Summer
(60
days).
Winter
(180
days).
Summer
(60
days).
LA 10 (PL 10)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
ERA
55
ERA
92
ERA
93
ERA
94
ERA
95
ERA
96
ERA
100
LS 85
LS 97
LS 102
LS 107
LS 138
LS 144
LS 145
5(3)
5(8)
*(2)
*(*)
*(*)
1(3)
*(1)
2(1)
1(2)
*(*)
*(*)
*(1)
54(34)
*(*)
1(1)
2(3)
*(*)
*(*)
*(*)
*(1)
*(*)
2(4)
*(1)
*(*)
*(*)
1(2)
39(29)
*(1)
3(3)
11(8)
2(2)
*(*)
*(*)
4(3)
1(1)
1(1)
5(2)
*(*)
*(*)
2(1)
33(34)
*(*)
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47034
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—CONDITIONAL OIL SPILL PROBABILITIES (PERCENT) IN REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AREAS (ERAS)
AND LAND SEGMENTS (LSS) FOR LAUNCH AREAS (LAS) AND PIPELINES (PLS) OFFSHORE OF FOUR OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY SITES. VALUES IN PARENTHESES ARE FOR PIPELINE SEGMENTS—Continued
[* = Less than one-half percent.]
Launch area
(pipeline segment)
LA 12 (PL 11)
LA 12 (PL 12)
Season
of spill
(duration
of spill)
Winter
(180
days).
Summer
(60
days).
Winter
(180
days).
Summer
(60
days).
Winter
(180
days).
ERA
55
ERA
92
ERA
93
ERA
94
ERA
95
ERA
96
ERA
100
LS 85
LS 97
LS 102
LS 107
LS 138
LS 144
LS 145
1(1)
2(3)
*(*)
*(*)
*(*)
1(1)
*(*)
3(4)
2(1)
*(*)
*(*)
2(2)
29(29)
1(1)
*(2)
12(12)
7(3)
2(1)
1(*)
13(6)
3(2)
*(*)
7(6)
1(1)
1(1)
9(3)
33(29)
1(*)
1(1)
11(8)
1(*)
1(*)
*(*)
12(2)
1(*)
3(3)
4(4)
*(*)
*(*)
3(2)
31(28)
2(1)
*(*)
12(9)
7(7)
2(3)
1(1)
13(12)
3(5)
*(*)
7(5)
1(2)
1(3)
9(11)
33(32)
1(1)
1(1)
11(8)
1(1)
1(1)
*(*)
12(11)
1(1)
3(3)
4(3)
*(1)
*(1)
3(4)
31(30)
2(2)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Definitions of ERAs and LSs, from Tables A.1–13, A.1–20, and A.1–22 (MMS, 2008).
ERA 55: Point Barrow, Plover Islands (Aug–Nov).
ERA 92: Thetis, Jones, Cottle and Return Islands, West Dock (Jan–Dec).
ERA 93: Cross and No Name Island (Aug–Nov).
ERA 94: Maguire Islands, Flaxman Island, Barrier Islands (Jan–Dec).
ERA 95: Arey and Barter Islands and Bernard Spit (Aug–Nov).
ERA 96: Midway, Cross and Bartlett Islands (May–October).
ERA 100: Jago and Tapkaurak Spits (May–October).
Seasonal LS 85: Barrow, Browerville, Elson Lagoon (August–November).
LS 97: Beechey Point, Bertoncini, Bodfish, Cottle and, Jones Islands, Milne Point, Simpson Lagoon.
LS 102: Flaxman Island, Maguire Islands, North Star Island, Point Hopson, Point Sweeney, Point Thomson, Staines River.
LS 107: Bernard Harbor, Jago Lagoon, Kaktovik, Kaktovik Lagoon.
Grouped LS 138: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Jan–Dec).
Grouped LS 144: United States Beaufort Coast (Jan–Dec).
Grouped LS 145: Canada Beaufort Coast (Jan–Dec).
Polar bears are most vulnerable to a
large oil spill during the open-water
period, when bears form aggregations on
shore. In the Beaufort Sea, these
aggregations often form in the fall near
subsistence-harvested bowhead whale
carcasses. Specific aggregation areas
include Point Barrow, Cross Island, and
Kaktovik. In recent years, more than 60
polar bears have been observed feeding
on whale carcasses just outside of
Kaktovik, and in the autumn of 2002,
NSB and Service biologists documented
more than 100 polar bears in and
around Barrow. In order for significant
impacts to polar bears to occur, (1) A
large oil spill would have to occur, (2)
oil would have to contact an area where
polar bears aggregate, and (3) the
aggregation of polar bears would have to
occur at the same time as the spill. The
risk of all three of these events occurring
simultaneously is extremely low.
We identified polar bear aggregations
in environmental resource areas and
non-grouped land segments (ERA 55,
93, 95, 96, 100; LS 85, 107). Assuming
a spill occurs during summer or winter,
the OSRA estimates the chance of
contacting these aggregations is 13
percent or less (Table 1). The OSRA
estimates LA12 has the highest chance
of a large spill contacting ERA 96
(Midway, Cross, and Bartlett islands).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Some polar bears aggregate at these
islands during August–October (3
months). If a large oil spill occurred and
contacted those aggregation sites outside
of that timeframe of use by polar bears,
potential impacts to polar bears would
be reduced.
Coastal areas, such as the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and
nearshore barrier islands exhibiting
relief (containing tundra habitat),
provide important denning habitat for
polar bears (Amstrup 1993, Amstrup
and Gardner 1994, Durner et al. 2006,
USFWS unpubl. data). Considering that
65 percent of confirmed terrestrial dens
found in Alaska from 1981–2005 were
on coastal or island bluffs (Durner et al.
2006), oiling of such habitats could have
negative effects on polar bears, although
the specific nature and ramifications of
such effects are unknown.
Assuming a large oil spill occurs, and
extrapolating the OSRA estimates to
tundra relief barrier islands (ERA 92, 93,
and 94, LS 97 and 102); these areas have
up to a 12 percent chance of a large spill
contacting them (with a range of less
than 0.5 percent to 12 percent) from
LA12 (Table 1). The OSRA estimates
suggest that there is an 11 percent
chance that oil would contact the
coastline of the ANWR (LS 138). The
Kaktovik area (ERA 95 and 100, LS 107)
has up to a 5 percent chance of spill
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
contact, assuming spills occur during
the summer season and contact the
coastline within 60 days. The chance of
a spill contacting the coast near Barrow
(ERA 55, LS 85) would be as high as 5
percent (Table 1).
All barrier islands are important
resting and travel corridors for polar
bears; larger barrier islands that contain
tundra relief are also important denning
habitat. Tundra-bearing barrier islands
within the geographic region and near
oil field development are the Jones
Island group of Pingok, Bertoncini,
Bodfish, Cottle, Howe, Foggy, Tigvariak,
and Flaxman islands. In addition, Cross
Island has gravel relief, and polar bears
have denned on it. The Jones Island
group is located in ERA 92 and LS 97.
If a spill were to originate from an LA
8 pipeline segment during the summer
months, the probability that this spill
would contact these land segments
could be as great as 8 percent. The
probability that a spill from LA10 would
contact the Jones Island group would
range from 1 percent to as high as 11
percent. Likewise, for LA 12, PL 11 and
the LA 12, PL 12, the range would be
from 4 percent to as high as 12 percent
and from 3 percent to as high as 12
percent, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Risk Assessment From Prior Incidental
Take Regulations (ITRs)
In previous ITRs, we used a risk
assessment method that considered oil
spill probability estimates for two sites
(Northstar and Liberty), oil spill
trajectory models, and a polar bear
distribution model based on location of
satellite-collared females during
September and October (68 FR 66744,
November 28, 2003; and 71 FR 43926;
August 2, 2006). To support the analysis
for this action, we reviewed the
previous analysis and used the data to
compare the potential effects of a large
oil spill in a nearshore production
facility (less than 5 miles), such as
Liberty, and a facility located further
offshore, such as Northstar (greater than
5 miles). Although Liberty was
originally designed as an offshore
production island, it is currently being
developed as a production facility
connected to the mainland by a
causeway, using ultra-extended-reach
technology to drill directionally into the
oil prospect. Even though the risk
assessment of 2006 did not specifically
model spills from the Oooguruk or
Nikaitchuq sites, we believed it was
reasonable to assume that the analysis
for Liberty, and indirectly Northstar,
adequately reflected the potential
impacts likely to occur from an oil spill
at either of these additional locations
due to the similarity in the nearshore
locations.
Methodology of Prior Risk Assessment
The first step in the risk assessment
analysis was to examine oil spill
probabilities at offshore production sites
for the summer (July–October) and
winter (November–June) seasons based
on information developed for the
original Northstar and Liberty EISs. We
assumed that one large spill occurred
during the 5-year period covered by the
regulations. A detailed description of
the methodology can be found at 71 FR
43926. The second step in the risk
assessment was to estimate the number
of polar bears that could be impacted by
a large spill. All modeled polar bear grid
cell locations that were intersected by
one or more cells of a rasterized spillet
path (a modeled group of hundreds of
oil particles forming a trajectory and
pushed by winds and currents and
impeded by ice) were considered ‘oiled’
by a spill. For purposes of the analysis,
if a bear contacted oil, it was assumed
to be a lethal contact. Estimating the
number of bears contacted by oil
involved estimating the distribution of
bears that could be in the area and
overlapping polar bear distributions and
seasonal aggregations with oil spill
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
trajectories. The trajectories previously
calculated for Northstar and Liberty
sites were used. The trajectories for
Northstar and Liberty were provided by
the BOEMRE and reported in Amstrup
et al. (2006). BOEMRE estimated
probable sizes of oil spills from a
pinhole leak to a rupture in the
transportation pipeline. These spill
sizes ranged from a minimum of 125
barrels to a catastrophic release event of
5,912 barrels. Researchers set the size of
the modeled spill at the scenario of
5,912 barrels, caused by a pinhole or
small leak for 60 days under ice without
detection.
The second component incorporated
polar bear densities overlapped with the
oil spill trajectories. To accomplish this,
in 2004, USGS completed an analysis
investigating the potential effects of
hypothetical oil spills on polar bears.
Movement and distribution information
was derived from radio and satellite
relocations of collared adult females.
Density estimates were used to
determine the distribution of polar bears
in the Beaufort Sea. Researchers then
created a grid system centered over the
Northstar production island and the
Liberty site to estimate the number of
bears expected to occur within each 1square-kilometer grid cell. Each of the
simulated oil spills were overlaid with
the polar bear distribution grid. Finally,
the likelihood of occurrence of bears
oiled during the duration of the 5-year
incidental take regulations was
estimated. This was calculated by
multiplying the number of polar bears
oiled by the spill by the percentage of
time bears were at risk for each period
of the year.
In summary, the maximum numbers
of bears potentially oiled by a 5,912barrel spill during September openwater seasons from Northstar was 27,
and the maximum from Liberty was 23,
assuming that a large oil spill occurred
and no cleanup or mitigation measures
took place. Potentially oiled bears
ranged up to 74 and 55 individuals in
October mixed-ice conditions for
Northstar and Liberty, respectively.
Median number of bears oiled by the
5,912-barrel spill from the Northstar
simulation site in September and
October were 3 and 11 bears,
respectively. Median numbers of bears
oiled from the Liberty simulation site
for September and October were 1 and
3 bears, respectively. Variation occurred
among oil spill scenarios and was the
result of differences in oil spill
trajectories among those scenarios and
not the result of variation in the
estimated bear densities. For example,
in October, 75 percent of trajectories
from the 5,912-barrel spill affected 20 or
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47035
fewer polar bears for spills originating at
the Northstar simulation site and 9 or
fewer bears for spills originating at the
Liberty simulation site.
When calculating the probability that
a 5,912-barrel spill would oil 5 or more
bears during the annual fall period, we
found that oil spills and trajectories
were more likely to affect small
numbers of bears (fewer than 5 bears)
than larger numbers of bears. Thus, for
Northstar, the probability of a 5,912barrel oil spill that would affect (result
in the mortality of) 5 or more bears was
1.0–3.4 percent; for 10 or more bears the
probability was 0.7–2.3 percent; and for
20 or more bears the probability was
0.2–0.8 percent. For Liberty, the
probability of a spill that would cause
the mortality of 5 or more bears was
0.3–7.4 percent; for 10 or more bears,
the probability was 0.1–0.4 percent; and
for 20 or more bears, the probability was
0.1–0.2 percent.
Discussion of Prior Risk Assessment
The location of Industry sites within
the marine environment is important
when analyzing the potential for polar
bears to contact a large oil spill.
Simulations from the prior risk
assessment suggested that bears have a
higher probability of being oiled from
facilities located further offshore, such
as Northstar. Northstar Island is nearer
the active ice zone and in deeper water
than Endicott/Liberty, Oooguruk, and
Nikaitchuq, areas where higher bear
densities were calculated. Furthermore,
Northstar is not sheltered by barrier
islands. By comparison through
modeling, the landfast ice inside the
shelter of the barrier islands appeared to
dramatically restrict the extent of most
oil spills, in contrast to Northstar, which
lies outside the barrier islands and in
deeper water. However, it should be
noted that while oil spreads more in
deep water and breaks up faster in
deeper waters where wind and wave
action are higher, oil persists longer in
shallow waters and along the shore.
Based on the simulations, a nearshore
island production site (less than 8 km or
5 mi) would potentially involve less risk
of polar bears being oiled than a facility
located further offshore (greater than 8
km or 5 mi). For any spill event,
seasonality of habitat use by bears will
be an important variable in accessing
risk to polar bears. During the fall
season, when a portion of the SBS bear
population uses terrestrial sites for
aggregating and barrier islands for travel
corridors, spill events from nearshore
industrial facilities (less than 8 km or 5
mi offshore) may pose more chance of
exposing bears to oil due to their
persistence in the nearshore
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47036
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
environment. Conversely, during icecovered and summer seasons, industry
facilities located further offshore
(greater than 8 km or 5 mi) may increase
the chance of bears being exposed to oil,
as the bears will be associated with the
ice habitat.
Discussion of Polar Bear Aerial Coastal
Surveys for Current Analysis
The Service has an ongoing project to
monitor polar bear distribution and
numbers along the Beaufort Sea
coastline during the fall season. Aerial
surveys were conducted between 2000
and 2009. From 2000 to 2005, the
Service investigated the relationship
between sea-ice conditions, food
availability, and the fall distribution of
polar bears in terrestrial habitats of the
SBS via weekly aerial surveys. Aerial
surveys were conducted weekly during
September and October along the SBS
coastline and barrier islands between
Barrow and the Canadian border to
determine polar bear density during the
peak use of terrestrial habitat by bears.
The Service observed that the number of
bears on land increased when sea-ice
retreated farthest from the shore. The
distribution of bears also appeared to be
influenced by the availability of
subsistence-harvested bowhead whale
carcasses and the density of ringed seals
in offshore waters.
Between 2000 and 2005, the
maximum density estimate of bears
observed during any single survey was
8.6 bears/100 km (62 mi), or 122 bears
total. Across all years (2000 to 2005) and
survey dates between mid-September
and the end of October, an average of 4
bears/100 km (62 mi), or 57 bears total,
were observed. The Service estimated
that a maximum of 8.0 percent and an
average of 3.7 percent of the estimated
1,526 bears in the SBS population were
observed on land during the late openwater and broken-ice period. This
period coincides with increased
aggregations of bears in the nearshore at
feeding sites and the peak observation
period (August through October) of
bears observed by Industry as reported
through their bear monitoring programs.
This would likely be the period posing
the greatest risk to the largest number of
bears from an oil spill.
The number of bears observed per
kilometer of survey flown was higher
between Cape Halkett and Jago Spit (4
bears/100 km [62 mi]) than the area
surveyed between Barrow and the
Canadian border (3 bears/100 km [62
mi]) during the 2003–2005 surveys. The
Service reported that this difference was
largely driven by a major concentration
of bears (69 percent of total bears
onshore) at Barter Island (17.0 polar
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
bears/100 km [62 mi]). In addition,
annual surveys were also conducted in
2007, 2008, and 2009. The number of
bears observed during weekly surveys
ranged between 2 to 51, 2 to 78, and 7
to 75, respectively. The highest
concentrations continued to be in the
area of Barter Island and the community
of Kaktovik. Using the above
information, if a spill occurred during
the fall open-water or broken-ice period,
up to 8 percent of the SBS population
could potentially contact oil.
Conclusion of Risk Assessment
In summary, documented oil-spillrelated impacts in the marine
environment to polar bears to date in
the Beaufort Sea by the oil and gas
Industry are minimal. To date, no large
spills by Industry in the marine
environment have occurred in Arctic
Alaska. Nevertheless, the possibility of
oil spills from Industry activities and
the subsequent impacts on polar bears
that contact oil remain a major concern.
There has been much discussion
about effective techniques for
containing, recovering, and cleaning up
oil spills in Arctic marine
environments, particularly the concern
that effective oil spill cleanup during
poor weather and broken-ice conditions
has not been proven. Given this
uncertainty, limiting the likelihood of a
large oil spill becomes an even more
important consideration. Industry oilspill contingency plans describe
methodologies in place to prevent a
spill from occurring. For example, all
current offshore production facilities
have spill containment systems in place
at the well heads. In the event that an
oil discharge should occur, containment
systems are designed to collect the oil
before it contacts the environment.
With the limited background
information available regarding oil
spills in the Arctic environment, it is
unknown what the outcome of such a
spill event would be if one were to
occur. Polar bears could encounter oil
spills during the open-water and icecovered seasons in offshore or onshore
habitat. Although the majority of the
SBS polar bear population spends a
large amount of their time offshore on
the pack ice, it is likely that some bears
would encounter oil from a large spill
that persisted for 30 days or more.
Although the extent of impacts from
a large oil spill would depend on the
size, location, and timing of spills
relative to polar bear distributions and
on the effectiveness of spill response
and cleanup efforts, under some
scenarios, population-level impacts
could be expected. A large spill
originating from a marine oil platform
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
could have significant impacts on polar
bears if an oil spill contacted an
aggregation of polar bears. Likewise, a
spill occurring during the broken-ice
period could significantly impact the
SBS polar bear population, in part
because polar bears may be more active
during this season.
In the event that an offshore oil spill
contacted numerous bears, a potentially
significant impact to the SBS population
could result, initially to the percentage
of the population directly contacted by
oil, but impacts could likely affect a
much larger portion of the population.
This effect would be magnified in and
around areas of polar bear aggregations.
Bears could also be affected indirectly
either by food contamination or by
chronic lasting effects caused by
exposure to oil. During the 5 year period
of these regulations, however, the
chance of a large spill occurring is
extremely low.
While there is uncertainty in the
analysis, certain vectors have to align
for polar bears to be impacted by a large
oil spill occurring in the marine
environment. First, a large spill has to
occur. Second, the large spill has to
contact areas where bears may be
located. Assuming that a large spill
occurs, BOEMRE’s most recent OSRA
estimated that there is as much as a 13
percent chance that a large spill from
the analyzed sites (LAs 8, 10, 12, and
PLs 10, 11, 12), would contact Cross
Island (ERA 96) within 60 days during
summer and as much as an 11 percent
chance that it would contact Barter
Island and/or the coast of the ANWR
(ERA 95 and 100, LS 107 and 138).
Similarly, there is as much as a 5
percent chance that an oil spill would
contact the coast near Barrow (ERA 55,
LS 85). Third, polar bears would have
to be seasonally distributed within the
affected region when the oil is present.
Data from the polar bear coastal surveys
suggested that while polar bears are not
uniformly distributed, an average of 3.7
percent, with a maximum of 8 percent
(sample size of 122 bears), of the
estimated 1,526 bears in the SBS
population were distributed along the
Beaufort Sea coastline between the
Alaska/Canada border and Barrow.
As a result of the information
considered here, the Service concludes
that the probability of an offshore spill
from an offshore production facility in
the next 5 years is low. Moreover, in the
unlikely event of a large spill, the
probability that spills would contact
areas or habitat important to bears
appears low. Third, while individual
bears could be affected by a spill, the
potential for a population-level effect
would be minimal unless the spill
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
contacted an aggregation of bears.
Known polar bear aggregations tend to
be seasonal during the late open-water
and broken-ice season, further
minimizing the potential of a spill to
impact bears. Therefore, we conclude
that only small numbers of polar bears
are likely to be affected by a large oil
spill (greater than 1,000 barrels) in the
Arctic waters, with only a negligible
impact to the SBS population.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Documented Impacts of the Oil and Gas
Industry on Pacific Walruses and Polar
Bears
In order to document potential
impacts to polar bears and walruses, we
analyzed potential effects that could
have more than a negligible impact to
both species. The effects analyzed
included the loss or preclusion of
habitat, lethal take, harassment, and oil
spills.
Pacific Walrus
During the history of the incidental
take regulations, the actual impacts of
Industry activities on Pacific walruses,
documented through monitoring, were
minimal. From 1994 to 2004, Industry
recorded nine sightings, involving a
total of ten Pacific walruses, during the
open-water season. From 2005 to 2009,
an additional eight individual walruses
were observed during Industry
operations in the Beaufort Sea. In most
cases, walruses appeared undisturbed
by human interactions; however, three
sightings during the early 2000s
involved potential disturbance to the
walruses. Two of three sightings
involved walruses hauling out on the
armor of Northstar Island, and one
sighting occurred at the SDC on the
McCovey prospect, where the walruses
reacted to helicopter noise. With the
additional sightings in the Beaufort Sea,
walruses were observed during
exploration (eight sightings; five during
recent aerial surveys; 2009),
development (three sightings), and
production (six sightings) activities.
There is no evidence that there were any
physical effects or impacts to these
individual walruses based on the
interaction with Industry. We know of
no other interactions that occurred
between walrus and Industry during the
duration of the incidental take program.
Furthermore, there have been no other
documented impacts to walruses from
Industry.
Cumulative Impacts
Pacific walruses do not normally
range into the Beaufort Sea, and
documented interactions between oil
and gas activities and walruses have
been minimal. Industry activities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
identified by the petitioners are likely to
result in some incremental cumulative
effects to the small number of walruses
exposed to these activities through the
potential exclusion or avoidance of
walruses from resting areas and
disruption of associated biological
behaviors. However, based on the
habitat use patterns of walruses and
their close association with seasonal
pack ice, relatively small numbers of
walruses are likely to be encountered
during the open-water season when
marine activities are expected to occur.
Required monitoring and mitigation
measures designed to minimize
interactions between authorized projects
and concentrations of resting or feeding
walruses are also expected to limit the
severity of any behavioral responses. As
a population, hunting pressure, climate
change, and the expansion of
commercial activities into walrus
habitat all have potential to impact
walruses. Combined, these factors are
expected to present significant
challenges to future walrus conservation
and management efforts. However, we
conclude that exploration activities,
especially as mitigated through the
regulatory process, are not expected to
add significantly to the cumulative
impacts on the Pacific walrus
population from past, present, and
future activities that are reasonably
likely to occur within the 5-year period
covered by these regulations.
Polar Bear
Documented impacts on polar bears
by the oil and gas Industry during the
past 40 years appear to be minimal.
Historically, polar bears have spent a
limited amount of time on land, coming
ashore to feed, den, or move to other
areas. With the changing of their
distribution based on the changing ice
environment, the Service anticipates
that bears will remain on land longer. At
times, fall storms deposit bears along
the coastline, where the bears remain
until the ice returns. For this reason,
polar bears have mainly been
encountered at or near most coastal and
offshore production facilities, or along
the roads and causeways that link these
facilities to the mainland. During those
periods, the likelihood of interactions
between polar bears and Industry
activities increases. We have found that
the polar bear interaction planning and
training requirements set forth in these
regulations and required through the
LOA process have increased polar bear
awareness and minimized the number
of these encounters. LOA requirements
have also increased our knowledge of
polar bear activity in the developed
areas.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47037
No known lethal take associated with
Industry has occurred during the period
covered by incidental take regulations.
Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal
takes by Industry were rare. Since 1968,
there have been two documented cases
of lethal take of polar bears associated
with oil and gas activities. In both
instances, the lethal take was reported
to be in defense of human life. In winter
1968–1969, an Industry employee shot
and killed a polar bear. In 1990, a
female polar bear was killed at a drill
site on the west side of Camden Bay. In
contrast, 33 polar bears were killed in
the Canadian Northwest Territories from
1976 to 1986 due to encounters with
Industry. Since the beginning of the
incidental take program, which includes
measures that minimize impacts to the
species, no polar bears have been killed
due to encounters associated with
current Industry activities on the North
Slope. For this reason, Industry has
requested that these regulations cover
only nonlethal, incidental take.
To date, most impacts to polar bears
from industry operations have been the
result of direct bear–human encounters,
some of which have led to deterrence
events. Monitoring efforts by Industry
required under previous regulations for
the incidental take of polar bears
documented various types of
interactions between polar bears and
Industry. Between 2006 and 2009, a
total of 73 LOAs have been issued to
Industry, with an average of 18 LOAs
annually. Not all Industry activities
result in the observation of, or
interaction with, polar bears. Polar bear
observations were recorded for 56
percent of the LOAs (41 of 73 LOAs).
From 2006 through 2009, an average
of 306 polar bears was observed and
reported per year (with a range of 170
to 420 bears annually). During 2007,
during 177 sightings, 7 companies
observed 321 polar bears. In 2008,
during 186 sightings, 10 companies
observed 313 polar bears. In 2009,
during 245 sightings, 420 polar bears
were observed. In all 3 years, the highest
number of bears observed was recorded
in the fall season in August and
September. In 2007, the highest number
of bears was recorded in August, where
90 sightings totaling 148 bears were
documented; in August 2008, 87
sightings totaling 162 bears were
recorded; while in 2009, bear sightings
were reported 77 times. Sightings of
polar bears have increased since
previous regulatory time periods due to
a combination of variables. The high
number of bear sightings for these years
was most likely the result of an
increased number of bears using the
terrestrial habitat as a result of changes
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
47038
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
in sea-ice habitat, multiple marinebased projects occurring near barrier
islands (where multiple sightings were
reported), and increased compliance
and monitoring of Industry projects,
especially during August and
September, where some repeat sightings
of individual bears and family groups
occurred. This trend in observations is
consistent with the hypothesis of
increasing use of coastal habitats by
polar bears during the summer months.
Industry activities that occur on or
near the Beaufort Sea coast continue to
have the greatest potential for
encountering polar bears, as opposed to
Industry activities occurring inland.
According to AOGA figures, the offshore
facilities of Endicott, Liberty, Northstar,
and Oooguruk accounted for 47 percent
of all bear observations between 2005
and 2008 (182 of 390 sightings).
Intentional take of polar bears
(through separate Service authorizations
under sections 101(a)(4)(A), 109(h), and
112(c) of the MMPA) occurs on the
North Slope as well. Intentional take is
used as a mitigation measure to allow
citizens conducting activities in polar
bear habitat to take polar bears by
harassment (nonlethal deterrence
activities) for the protection of both
human life and polar bears. The Service
recognizes intentional take as an
escalation of an incidental take, where
the purpose of the intentional take
authorization is to ‘‘take’’ polar bears by
noninjurious deterrent activities prior to
a bear–human encounter escalating to
the use of deadly force against a polar
bear. These MMPA-specific
authorizations have proven to be
successful in preventing injury and
death of humans and polar bears.
The Service provides guidance and
training on the appropriate harassment
response necessary for polar bears. The
largest operator on the North Slope,
BPXA, has documented an increase in
the total number of bear observations for
their oil units since 2006 (39, 62, 96,
and 205 bears for the years 2006, 2007,
2008, and 2009, respectively). However,
the percentage of Level B deterrence
events reported by BPXA has decreased
from 64 percent in 2006 to 21 percent
in 2009 of total observations. BPXA
attributes this decrease to an increase in
polar bear awareness and deterrence
training of personnel. A similar trend
appears in the slope-wide data
presented by AOGA, which represent
multiple operators. The percentage of
Level B deterrence events has decreased
from 39 percent of all reported polar
bear sightings in 2005 to 23 percent in
2008. We currently have no indication
that these encounters, which alter the
behavior and movement of individual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
bears, have an effect on survival and
recruitment in the SBS polar bear
population.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts of oil and gas
activities are assessed, in part, through
the information we gain in monitoring
reports, which are required for each
operator under the authorizations.
Incidental take regulations have been in
place in the Arctic oil and gas fields for
the past 17 years. Information from
these reports provides a history of past
effects on polar bears from interactions
with oil and gas activities, including
intentional take. Information on
previous levels of impact is used to
evaluate impacts from existing and
future Industry activities and facilities.
In addition, information used in our
cumulative effects assessment includes:
polar bear research leading to
publications and data, such as polar
bear population assessments by USGS;
information from legislative actions,
including the listing of the polar bear as
a threatened species under the ESA in
2008; traditional knowledge of polar
bear habitat use; anecdotal observations;
and professional judgment.
While the number of LOAs being
requested does not represent the
potential for direct impact to polar
bears, it does offer an index of the effort
and type of Industry work that is
currently being conducted. LOA trend
data also help the Service track progress
on various projects as they move
through the stages of oil field
development. An increase in slope-wide
projects has the ability to expose more
people to the Arctic and to increase
bear–human interactions.
The Polar Bear Status Review
describes cumulative effects of oil and
gas development on polar bears in
Alaska (see pages 175 to 181 of the
status review). This document can be
found at https://https://
www.regulations.gov; search for Docket
No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098. In
addition, in 2003 the National Research
Council published a description of the
cumulative effects that oil and gas
development would have on polar bears
and seals in Alaska. They concluded the
following:
(1) ‘‘Industrial activity in the marine
waters of the Beaufort Sea has been
limited and sporadic and likely has not
caused serious cumulative effects to
ringed seals or polar bears.’’
(2) ‘‘Careful mitigation can help to
reduce the effects of oil and gas
development and their accumulation,
especially if there is no major oil spill.
However, the effects of full-scale
industrial development off the North
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Slope would accumulate through the
displacement of polar bears and ringed
seals from their habitats, increased
mortality, and decreased reproductive
success.’’
(3) ‘‘A major Beaufort Sea oil spill
would have major effects on polar bears
and ringed seals.’’
(4) ‘‘Climatic warming at predicted
rates in the Beaufort and Chukchi sea
regions is likely to have serious
consequences for ringed seals and polar
bears, and those effects will accumulate
with the effects of oil and gas activities
in the region.’’
(5) ‘‘Unless studies to address the
potential accumulation of effects on
North Slope polar bears or ringed seals
are designed, funded, and conducted
over long periods of time, it will be
impossible to verify whether such
effects occur, to measure them, or to
explain their causes.’’
A detailed description of climate
change and its potential effects on polar
bears, prepared by the Service, can be
found in the ‘‘Polar Bear Status Review’’
(pages 72 to 108) at: https://
www.regulations.gov; search for Docket
No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098.
Additional detailed information from
USGS regarding the status of the SBS
stock in relation to climate change,
projections of habitat and populations,
and forecasts of rangewide status can be
found at: https://www.usgs.gov/
newsroom/special/polar_bears/. Climate
change could alter polar bear habitat
because seasonal changes, such as an
extended duration of open water, may
preclude sea-ice habitat and restrict
some bears to coastal areas. Biological
effects on the worldwide population of
polar bears are expected to include
increased movements, changes in bear
distributions, changes in access to and
the allocation of denning areas,
increased energy expenditure from
open-water swimming, and possible
decreased fitness. Demographic effects
that may occur due to climate change
include changes in prey availability to
polar bears, a potential reduction in the
access to prey, and changes in seal
productivity.
The Service anticipates negligible
effects on polar bears due to Industry
activity, even though there may be an
increased use of terrestrial habitat in the
fall period by polar bears on the coast
of Alaska and an increased use of
terrestrial habitat by denning bears in
the same area. Polar bears are not
residents of the oil fields but rather use
the habitat in a transitory way, which
limits potential impacts from Industry.
Furthermore, no known Level A
harassment or lethal takes of polar bears
have occurred throughout the duration
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
of the incidental take program, which
was initiated in 1994. The last known
Industry-caused death of a bear by
Industry occurred in 1990. This
documented information suggests that
Industry will have no more than a
negligible effect on polar bears for the 5year regulatory period, even though
there may be more bears onshore. The
Service also believes that required
mitigation measures will be effective in
minimizing any additional effects
attributed to seasonal shifts in
distributions of the increased use by
bears of terrestrial habitats and denning
polar bears during the 5-year timeframe
of the regulations, as has occurred in the
past. It is likely that, due to potential
seasonal changes in the abundance and
distribution of polar bears during the
fall, more frequent encounters may
occur, and Industry may have to
implement mitigation measures more
often (e.g., the number of polar bear
deterrence events may increase). In
addition, if additional polar bear den
locations are detected within industrial
activity areas, spatial and temporal
mitigation measures, including
cessation of activities, may be instituted
more frequently during the 5-year
period of the rule.
The activities identified by Industry
are likely to result in incremental
cumulative effects on polar bears during
the 5-year regulatory period. Based on
Industry monitoring information, for
example, deflection from travel routes
along the coast, where bears move
around coastal facilities rather than
traveling through them, appears to be a
common occurrence. Incremental
cumulative effects could also occur
through the potential exclusion or
temporary avoidance of polar bears from
feeding, resting, or denning areas and
the disruption of associated biological
behaviors. However, based on
monitoring results acquired from past
ITRs, the level of cumulative effects,
including those of climate change,
during the 5-year regulatory period
would result in negligible effects on the
bear population.
Monitoring results from Industry,
analyzed by the Service, indicate that
little or no short-term impacts on polar
bears have resulted from oil and gas
activities. We evaluated both subtle and
acute impacts likely to occur from
industrial activity and determined that
all direct and indirect effects, including
cumulative effects, of industrial
activities have not adversely affected the
species through effects on rates of
recruitment or survival. Past monitoring
reports indicate that the level of
interaction between Industry and polar
bears has been minimal. Additional
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
information, such as subsistence harvest
levels and incidental observations of
polar bears near shore, provide evidence
that these populations have not been
adversely affected. For the next 5 years,
we anticipate that the level of oil and
gas Industry interactions with polar
bears will likely increase in response to
increased numbers of bears on shore
and increased activity along the coast;
however, we do not anticipate that
significant impacts on bears will occur.
Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
Small Numbers Determination
As discussed in the ‘‘Biological
Information’’ section, the dynamic
nature of sea-ice habitat influences the
seasonal and annual distribution and
abundance of polar bears and walruses
in the specified geographical region.
The following analysis concludes that
only small numbers of Pacific walruses
and polar bears are likely to be taken
incidental to the described Industry
activities relative to the number of
walruses and polar bears that are
expected to be unaffected by those
activities. This conclusion is based
upon known distribution patterns and
habitat use of Pacific walruses and polar
bears.
1. The number of polar bears and
walruses utilizing the described
geographic region during Industry
operations is expected to be small
relative to the number of animals in the
respective populations utilizing pack-ice
habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi
Seas for polar bears or the Chukchi and
Bering Seas habitats for the Pacific
walrus. As stated before, the Pacific
walrus is extralimital in the Beaufort
Sea, since the majority of the walrus
population is found exclusively in the
Chukchi and Bering seas. There is no
expectation that even discrete
movements, such as foraging, by some
individual walruses into the Beaufort
Sea as a result of climate change will
increase the number of walruses
observed by Industry during the
regulatory period.
Polar bears are expected to remain
closely associated with either the sea ice
or coastal zones throughout the year on
the North Slope of Alaska. As a result
of coastal surveys, the Service estimates
that a maximum of 8.0 percent and an
average of 3.7 percent of the estimated
1,526 bears in the SBS population have
been observed on land during the late
open-water and broken-ice period. This
period coincides with the peak period
(August through October) of
observations of bears by Industry, as
reported through their bear monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47039
programs. If not all bears were counted,
this suggests that at the peak of
terrestrial habitat use in early fall prior
to freeze-up, up to 10 percent of the SBS
polar bear population can be found near
the coastal environments, while 90
percent of the bears continue to be
associated with the existing pack ice.
2. Within the specified geographical
region, the footprint of authorized
projects is expected to be small relative
to the range of polar bear and walrus in
the region. Again, the fact that the
Pacific walrus is extralimital to the
Beaufort Sea suggests that any marine
operations conducted in the geographic
area will have minimal walrus
interactions within the geographic
region. Indeed, only 9 walruses have
been sighted in the course of Industry
operations since 1994.
Polar bears range well beyond the
boundaries of the geographic region of
these regulations (approximately
280,000 square kilometers or 68.9
million acres) and are transient through
the regions of Industry infrastructure.
As reported by AOGA, the total
infrastructure area on the North Slope as
of 2007 was 73 square kilometers
(18,129 acres), which is a small
proportion of the requested geographic
region.
3. Monitoring requirements and
adaptive mitigation measures are
expected to significantly limit the
number of incidental takes of animals.
Holders of an LOA will be required to
adopt monitoring requirements and
mitigation measures designed to reduce
potential impacts of their operations on
walruses and polar bears. Monitoring
programs are required to inform
operators of the presence of polar bears
or walrus. Adaptive management
responses based on real-time monitoring
information (described in these
regulations) will be used to avoid or
minimize interactions with walruses
and polar bears. For Industry activities
in terrestrial environments, where
denning polar bears may be a factor,
mitigation measures will require that
den detection surveys be conducted,
and Industry will maintain at least a 1mile distance from any known polar
bear den. A full description of the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements associated with an LOA,
which will be requirements for Industry,
can be found in 50 CFR 18.128. Note
that we have removed paragraph (iv) at
§ 18.128(a)(3) in the proposed rule from
this final rule as this paragraph is not
relevant for the specified geographic
region for this rule and was added
inadvertently.
We expect that only a small
proportion of the Pacific walrus
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47040
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
population or the CS and SBS polar bear
populations will likely be impacted by
any individual project because: (1) Only
small numbers of walruses or polar
bears will occur in the marine or
terrestrial environments where Industry
activities will occur; (2) only small
numbers will be impacted because
walrus are extralimital in the Beaufort
Sea and polar bears are widely
distributed throughout their expansive
range, which encompasses area outside
of the geographic region of the
regulations; and (3) the monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures
described below that will be imposed on
Industry will further reduce impacts.
Negligible Effects Determination
Based upon our review of the nature,
scope, and timing of oil and gas
activities and mitigation measures, and
in consideration of the best available
scientific information, we have
determined that these activities will
have a negligible impact on Pacific
walrus and on polar bears. Factors
considered in our negligible effects
determination include:
1. The behavior and distribution of
walruses and polar bears utilizing areas
that overlap with Industry is expected to
limit the amount of interactions between
walruses, polar bears, and Industry. The
distribution and habitat use patterns of
walruses and polar bears in conjunction
with the likely area of Industrial activity
results in relatively few animals in the
area of operations and, therefore, that
are likely to be affected. As discussed in
the section ‘‘Biological Information’’
(see Pacific Walrus section), only small
numbers of walruses are likely to be
found in Beaufort Sea open-water
habitats where offshore Industry
activities will occur.
Throughout the year, polar bears are
closely associated with pack ice and are
unlikely to interact with open-water
industrial activities for the same reasons
discussed in the Small Numbers
Determination. Likewise, polar bears
from the SBS and CS populations are
widely distributed and range outside of
the geographic region of these
regulations. In addition, through fall
coastal surveys we estimated that only
a small proportion of the SBS
population, approximately 8–10
percent, is distributed along the coastal
areas during the late-summer-early-fall
season.
2. The predicted effects of Industry
activities on walruses and polar bears
will be nonlethal, temporary, passive
takes of animals. The documented
impacts of previous Industry activities
on walruses and polar bears, taking into
consideration cumulative effects,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
provide direct information that the
types of activities analyzed for this rule
will have minimal effects and will be
short-term, temporary behavioral
changes.
3. The footprint of authorized projects
is expected to be small relative to the
range of polar bear and walrus
populations. As with the small numbers
determination, this factor will also help
minimize negligible effects of Industry
on Pacific walrus and polar bears. A
limited area of activity will reduce the
potential exposure of animals to
Industry activities and limit potential
interactions of those animals using the
area, such as walruses feeding in the
area or polar bears or walruses moving
through the area.
4. Mitigation measures will limit
potential effects of industry activities.
As described in the Small Numbers
Determination, holders of an LOA will
be required to adopt monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures
designed to reduce potential impacts of
their operations on walruses and polar
bears. Seasonal restrictions, monitoring
programs required to inform operators
of the presence of marine mammals and
environmental conditions, dendetection surveys for polar bears, and
adaptive management responses based
on real-time monitoring information
(described in these regulations) will be
used to avoid or minimize interactions
with polar bears and walruses and,
thereby, limit Industry effects on these
animals.
5. The potential impacts of climate
change for the duration of the
regulations (2011–2016) have the
potential to displace polar bears and
walruses from the geographic region
and during the season of Industry
activity. Climate change is likely to
result in significant impacts to polar
bear and walrus populations in the
future. Recent models indicate that the
persistence of Alaska’s polar bear stocks
are in doubt, and that they will possibly
disappear within 50 to 100 years due to
the changing Arctic ice conditions as a
result of climate change. Recent trends
in the Arctic have resulted in seasonal
sea-ice retreat off the continental shelf
and over deep Arctic Ocean waters,
presenting significant adaptive
challenges to walruses. Reasonably
foreseeable impacts to the Pacific walrus
population as a result of diminishing
sea-ice cover include: shifts in range
and abundance, possibly into the
Beaufort Sea; increased reliance on
coastal haulouts in the Chukchi Sea;
and increased mortality associated with
predation and disturbance events at
coastal haulouts.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Although climate change is a pressing
conservation issue for ice-dependent
species, such as polar bears and
walruses, we have concluded that the
activities by Industry addressed in this
5-year rule will not adversely impact the
survival of these species. Near-term
climate-driven change (retreat of sea ice)
will likely result in each species
utilizing areas, such as coastal haulouts
by walrus and the ice shelf by a
continued majority of the polar bear
population, outside of the geographic
region and areas of Industrial activity.
While the Service suspects that a certain
portion of the bear population using
coastal habitats (currently 8–10 percent
of the SBS population) will increase and
associate with terrestrial habitats longer,
the types of effects as a result of
Industry interaction will be short-term
behavioral changes.
We, therefore, conclude that any
incidental take reasonably likely to or
reasonably expected to occur as a result
of carrying out any of the activities
authorized under these regulations will
have no more than a negligible effect on
polar bears and Pacific walruses using
the Beaufort Sea region, and we do not
expect any resulting disturbances to
negatively impact the rates of
recruitment or survival for the polar
bears and Pacific walrus populations.
These regulations do not authorize
lethal take, and we do not anticipate
that any lethal take will occur.
Findings
We make the following findings
regarding this action:
Small Numbers
Pacific Walrus.
Pacific walruses are extralimital in the
SBS and, hence, there is a very low
probability that Industry activities,
including offshore drilling operations,
seismic activities, and coastal activities,
will adversely affect the Pacific walrus
population. Given the low numbers in
the region, we anticipate that no more
than a small number of walruses are
likely to be taken during the length of
this rule. We do not anticipate the
potential for any lethal take from normal
Industry activities. Therefore, we do not
anticipate any detrimental effects on
recruitment or survival.
We estimate that the projected
number of takes of Pacific walruses by
Industry will be no more than 10 takes
by harassment per year. Takes will be
Level B harassment, manifested as
short-term behavioral changes. This take
estimate is based on historic Industry
monitoring observations. Based on the
projected level of exploration activity, it
is unlikely that the number of takes will
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
increase significantly in the next 5
years.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Polar Bear
Standard operating conditions for
Industry exploration, development, and
production activities have the potential
to incidentally take polar bears. Recent
reporting data from the current ITRs
indicate that an annual average of 306
polar bears have been observed during
Industry activities. Some of these
observations are likely sightings of the
same bears due to the inability to
distinguish between animals in some
observations. While the majority of
observations are sightings where no
interaction between bears and Industry
occurs (81 percent of all bear
observations from 2006 to 2009: USFWS
unpubl. data), takes by harassment do
occur. Takes by harassment can be
described as either: (1) Deterrence
events (15 percent of all bear
observations from 2006 to 2009: USFWS
unpubl. data); and (2) those occasions
when there is clear evidence that the
bear’s behavior has been altered through
events other than deterrence (4 percent
of all bear observations from 2006 to
2009: USFWS unpubl. data).
Small takes of this nature are allowed
through LOAs. According to industry
monitoring data, the number of Level B
takes (deterrence events and behavioral
change events), averaged 66 occurrences
per year from 2006 to 2009 (67 takes in
2006, 64 takes in 2007, 33 takes in 2008,
and 101 takes in 2009).
Using these data, we anticipate that
the total number of takes of polar bears
by all Level B harassment events will
not exceed 150 per year. All anticipated
takes will be nonlethal Level B
harassment, involving only temporary
changes in bear behavior. The required
mitigation and monitoring measures
described in the regulations are
expected to prevent injurious Level A
takes. The number of lethal takes is
projected to be zero. We do not expect
the total of these disturbances to affect
rates of recruitment or survival in the
SBS polar bear population.
Negligible Impact
Based on the best scientific
information available, the results of
monitoring data from our previous
regulations (16 years of monitoring and
reporting data), the review of the
information generated by the listing of
the polar bear as a threatened species
and the designation of polar bear critical
habitat, the ongoing analysis of the
petition to list the Pacific walrus as a
threatened species under the ESA, the
results of our modeling assessments,
and the status of the population, we find
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
that any incidental take reasonably
likely to result from the effects of oiland gas-related exploration,
development, and production activities
during the period of the rule, in the
Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern
coast of Alaska, will have no more than
a negligible impact on polar bears and
Pacific walruses. In making this finding,
we considered the following:
(1) The distribution of the species
(through 10 years of aerial surveys and
studies of feeding ecology, and a
regression analysis of pack ice position
and polar bear distribution);
(2) The biological characteristics of
the species (through bio-monitoring for
toxic chemicals, studies of den site
behavior, radio-telemetry data);
(3) The nature of oil and gas Industry
activities;
(4) The potential effects of Industry
activities and potential oil spills on the
species;
(5) The probability of oil spills
occurring;
(6) The documented impacts of
Industry activities on the species, taking
into consideration cumulative effects
(through FLIR surveys, the use of
trained dogs to detect occupied dens, a
bear–human conflicts workshop, a study
assessing sound levels and of industrial
noise and potential noise and vibration
exposure for dens, and data mapping
den habitat);
(7) The potential impacts of climate
change, where both walruses and polar
bears can potentially be displaced from
preferred habitat;
(8) Mitigation measures designed to
minimize Industry impacts through
adaptive management; and
(9) Other data provided by Industry
monitoring programs in the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas.
We also considered the specific
Congressional direction in balancing the
potential for a significant impact with
the likelihood of that event occurring.
The specific Congressional direction
that justifies balancing probabilities
with impacts follows:
If potential effects of a specified activity
are conjectural or speculative, a finding of
negligible impact may be appropriate. A
finding of negligible impact may also be
appropriate if the probability of occurrence is
low but the potential effects may be
significant. In this case, the probability of
occurrence of impacts must be balanced with
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)].
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47041
Pacific walruses are only occasionally
found during the open-water season in
the Beaufort Sea. The Beaufort Sea polar
bear population is widely distributed
throughout its range. A small percentage
(less than 10 percent) of the SBS polar
bear population typically occurs in
coastal and nearshore areas where most
Industry activities take place.
We reviewed the effects of the oil and
gas Industry activities on polar bears
and Pacific walruses, including impacts
from noise, physical obstructions,
human encounters, and oil spills. Based
on our review of these potential
impacts, past LOA monitoring reports,
and the biology and natural history of
Pacific walrus and polar bear, we
conclude that any incidental take
reasonably likely to or reasonably
expected to occur as a result of
projected activities will have a
negligible impact on polar bear and
Pacific walrus populations.
Furthermore, we do not expect these
disturbances to affect the rates of
recruitment or survival for the Pacific
walrus and polar bear populations.
These regulations do not authorize
lethal take, and we do not anticipate any
lethal take will occur.
The probability of an oil spill that will
cause significant impacts to Pacific
walruses and polar bears appears to be
extremely low. We have included
potential spill information from
Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, Northstar, and
Endicott/Liberty offshore projects in our
oil spill analysis to analyze multiple
offshore sites. We have analyzed the
likelihood of an oil spill in the marine
environment of the magnitude necessary
to kill a significant number of polar
bears for offshore projects and, through
a risk assessment analysis, found that it
is unlikely that there will be any lethal
take. In the unlikely event of a
catastrophic spill, we will take
immediate action to minimize the
impacts to these species and reconsider
the appropriateness of authorizations for
incidental taking through section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
After considering the cumulative
effects of existing and future
development, production, and
exploration activities, and the
likelihood of any impacts, both onshore
and offshore, we find that the total
expected takings resulting from oil and
gas Industry activities will affect no
more than small numbers and will have
no more than a negligible impact on the
SBS polar bear and Pacific walrus
populations inhabiting the Beaufort Sea
area on the North Slope coast of Alaska.
Our finding of ‘‘negligible impact’’
applies to incidental take associated
with the petitioner’s oil and gas
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
47042
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
exploration, development, and
production activities as mitigated
through the regulatory process. The
regulations establish monitoring and
reporting requirements to evaluate the
potential impacts of authorized
activities, as well as mitigation
measures designed to minimize
interactions with and impacts to
walruses and polar bears. We will
evaluate each request for an LOA based
on the specific activity and the specific
geographic location where the proposed
activities are projected to occur to
ensure that the level of activity and
potential take is consistent with our
finding of negligible impact. Depending
on the results of the evaluation, we may
grant the authorization, add further
operating restrictions, or deny the
authorization.
Conditions are attached to each LOA.
These conditions minimize interference
with normal breeding, feeding, and
possible migration patterns to ensure
that the effects to the species remain
negligible. The conditions include the
following stipulations: (1) These
regulations do not authorize intentional
taking of polar bears or Pacific walruses
or lethal incidental take; (2) for the
protection of pregnant polar bears
during denning activities (den selection,
birthing, and maturation of cubs) in
known denning areas, Industry
activities may be restricted in specific
locations during specified times of the
year; and (3) each activity covered by an
LOA requires a site-specific plan of
operation and a site-specific polar bear
interaction plan. We may add additional
measures depending upon site-specific
and species-specific concerns.
Restrictions in denning areas will be
applied on a case-by-case basis after
assessing each LOA request and may
require pre-activity surveys (e.g., aerial
surveys, FLIR surveys, or polar bear
scent-trained dogs) to determine the
presence or absence of denning activity
and, in known denning areas, may
require enhanced monitoring or flight
restrictions, such as minimum flight
elevations, if necessary. We will analyze
the required plan of operation and
interaction plans to ensure that the level
of activity and possible take are
consistent with our finding that total
incidental takes will have a negligible
impact on polar bear and Pacific
walruses and, where relevant, will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of these species for
subsistence uses.
We have evaluated climate change in
regard to polar bears and walruses.
Although climate change is a worldwide
phenomenon, it was analyzed as a
contributing effect that could alter polar
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
bear and walrus habitat and behavior.
Climate change could alter polar bear
habitat because seasonal changes, such
as extended duration of open water,
may preclude sea-ice habitat use and
restrict some bears to coastal areas. The
reduction of sea-ice extent, caused by
climate change, may also affect the
timing of polar bear seasonal
movements between the coastal regions
and the pack ice. If the sea ice continues
to recede as predicted, it is
hypothesized that polar bears may
spend more time on land rather than on
sea ice, similar to what has been
recorded in the Hudson Bay. Climate
change could also alter terrestrial
denning habitat through coastal erosion
brought about by accelerated wave
action. The challenge in the Beaufort
Sea will be to predict changes in ice
habitat, barrier islands, and coastal
habitats in relation to changes in polar
bear distribution and use of habitat.
Within the described geographic
region of this rule, Industry effects on
Pacific walruses and polar bears are
expected to occur at a level similar to
what has taken place under previous
regulations. We anticipate that there
will be an increased use of terrestrial
habitat in the fall period by polar bears.
We also anticipate a slight increased use
of terrestrial habitat by denning bears.
Nevertheless, we expect no significant
impact to these species as a result of
these anticipated changes. The
mitigation measures will be effective in
minimizing any additional effects
attributed to seasonal shifts in
distribution or denning polar bears
during the 5-year timeframe of the
regulations. It is likely that, due to
potential seasonal changes in
abundance and distribution of polar
bears during the fall, more frequent
encounters may occur and that Industry
may have to implement mitigation
measures more often (e.g., the number of
polar bear deterrence events may
increase). In addition, if additional polar
bear den locations are detected within
industrial activity areas, spatial and
temporal mitigation measures, including
cessation of activities, may be instituted
more frequently during the 5-year
period of the rule.
Climate change over time continues to
be a major concern to the Service, and
we are currently involved in the
collection of baseline data to help us
understand how the effects of climate
change will be manifested in the SBS
polar bear population. As we gain a
better understanding of climate change
effects on the SBS population, we will
incorporate the information in future
actions. Ongoing studies include those
led by the Service and the USGS Alaska
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Science Center to examine polar bear
habitat use, reproduction, and survival
relative to a changing sea ice
environment.
Specific objectives of the project
include: an enhanced understanding of
polar bear habitat availability and
quality influenced by ongoing climate
changes and the response by polar
bears; the effects of polar bear responses
to climate-induced changes to the sea
ice environment on body condition of
adults, numbers and sizes of offspring,
and survival of offspring to weaning
(recruitment); and population age
structure.
Although Pacific walruses are
relatively rare in the Beaufort Sea, the
Service and USGS are conducting
multiyear studies on the population to
investigate movements and habitat use
patterns. It is possible that as sea ice
diminishes in the Chukchi Sea beyond
the 5-year period of this rule, more
walruses will migrate east into the
Beaufort Sea.
Impact on Subsistence Take
Based on community consultations,
locations of hunting areas, the potential
overlap of hunting areas and Industry
projects, the best scientific information
available, and the results of monitoring
data, we find that take caused by oil and
gas exploration, development, and
production activities in the Beaufort Sea
and adjacent northern coast of Alaska
will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of polar bears
and Pacific walruses for taking for
subsistence uses during the period of
the rule. In making this finding, we
considered the following: (1) Records on
subsistence harvest from the Service’s
Marking, Tagging and Reporting
Program; (2) community consultations;
(3) effectiveness of the POC process
between Industry and affected Native
communities; and (4) anticipated 5-year
effects of Industry activities on
subsistence hunting. In addition, our
findings also incorporated the results of
coastal aerial surveys conducted within
the area during the past 7 years, direct
observations of polar bears occurring
near bowhead whale carcasses on Barter
Island and on Cross Island during
annual fall bowhead whaling efforts
conducted by the villages of Kaktovik
and Nuiqsut, respectively, and
anecdotal reports of North Slope
residents.
Polar bears and Pacific walruses
represent a small portion, in terms of
the number of animals, of the total
subsistence harvest for the villages of
Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik.
However, the low numbers do not mean
that the harvest of these species is not
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
important to Alaska Natives. Prior to
receipt of an LOA, Industry must
provide evidence to us that community
consultations have occurred or that an
adequate POC has been presented to the
subsistence communities. Industry will
be required to contact subsistence
communities that may be affected by its
activities to discuss potential conflicts
caused by the location, timing, and
methods of proposed operations.
Industry must make reasonable efforts to
ensure that activities do not interfere
with subsistence hunting and that
adverse effects on the availability of
polar bear or Pacific walruses are
minimized. Although multiple meetings
for multiple projects from numerous
operators have already taken place, no
official concerns have been voiced by
the Native communities with regard to
Industry activities limiting the
availability of polar bears or walruses
for subsistence uses. However, should
such a concern be voiced as Industry
continues to reach out to the Native
communities, development of Plans of
Cooperation, which must identify
measures to minimize any adverse
effects, will be required. The POC will
ensure that oil and gas activities will
continue not to have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock for subsistence uses.
This POC must provide the procedures
addressing how Industry will work with
the affected Native communities and
what actions will be taken to avoid
interference with subsistence hunting of
polar bear and walruses, as warranted.
The Service has not received any
reports and is aware of no information
that indicates that polar bears or
walruses are being or will be deflected
from hunting areas or impacted in any
way that diminishes their availability
for subsistence use by the expected level
of oil and gas activity. If there is
evidence during the 5-year period of the
regulations that oil and gas activities are
affecting the availability of polar bears
or walruses for take for subsistence uses,
we will reevaluate our findings
regarding permissible limits of take and
the measures required to ensure
continued subsistence hunting
opportunities.
Monitoring and Reporting
The purpose of monitoring
requirements is to assess the effects of
industrial activities on polar bears and
walruses to ensure that take is
consistent with that anticipated in the
negligible impact and subsistence use
analyses, and to detect any
unanticipated effects on the species.
Monitoring plans document when and
how bears and walruses are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
encountered, the number of bears and
walruses, and their behavior during the
encounter. This information allows the
Service to measure encounter rates and
trends of bear and walrus activity in the
industrial areas (such as numbers and
gender, activity, and 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, all activities are
required to report all sightings of polar
bears and walruses. To the extent
possible, monitors will record group
size, age, sex, reaction, duration of
interaction, and closest approach to
Industry. Activities within the coast of
the geographic region may incorporate
daily watch logs as well, which record
24-hour animal observations throughout
the duration of the project. Polar bear
monitors 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. At offshore
Industry sites, systematic monitoring
protocols will be implemented to
statistically monitor observation trends
of walruses or polar bears in the
nearshore areas where they usually
occur.
Monitoring activities are summarized
and reported in a formal report each
year. The applicant must submit an
annual monitoring and reporting plan at
least 90 days prior to the initiation of a
proposed activity, and the applicant
must submit a final monitoring report to
us no later than 90 days after the
completion of the activity. We base each
year’s monitoring objective on the
previous year’s monitoring results.
We require an approved plan for
monitoring and reporting the effects of
oil and gas Industry exploration,
development, and production activities
on polar bear and walruses prior to
issuance of an LOA. Since production
activities are continuous and long-term,
upon approval, LOAs and their required
monitoring and reporting plans will be
issued for the life of the activity or until
the expiration of the regulations,
whichever occurs first. Each year, prior
to January 15, we require that the
operator submit development and
production activity monitoring results
of the previous year’s activity. We
require approval of the monitoring
results for continued operation under
the LOA.
Treaty Obligations
The ITRs are consistent with the
Bilateral Agreement for the
Conservation and Management of the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47043
Polar Bear between the United States
and Russia. Article II of the Polar Bear
Agreement lists three obligations of the
Parties in protecting polar bear habitat:
(1) ‘‘Take appropriate action to protect
the ecosystem of which polar bears are
a part;’’
(2) ‘‘Give special attention to habitat
components such as denning and
feeding sites and migration patterns;’’
and
(3) ‘‘Manage polar bear populations in
accordance with sound conservation
practices based on the best available
scientific data.’’
This rule is also consistent with the
Service’s treaty obligations because it
incorporates mitigation measures that
ensure the protection of polar bear
habitat. LOAs for industrial activities
are conditioned to include area or
seasonal timing limitations or
prohibitions, such as placing 1-km (1mi) avoidance buffers around known or
observed dens (which halts or limits
activity until the bear naturally leaves
the den), building roads perpendicular
to the coast to allow for polar bear
movements along the coast, and
monitoring the effects of the activities
on polar bears. Available denning
habitat maps are provided by the USGS.
Discussion of Comments on the
Proposed Rule
The proposed rule, which was
published in the Federal Register (76
FR 13454) on March 11, 2011, included
a request for public comments. The
closing date for the comment period was
April 11, 2011. The Service received
7,523 comments. Two commenters
indicated support for issuing this rule.
The majority of comments (the result of
an e-mail campaign) received indicated
opposition. The following issues were
raised by commenters:
Comment 1: Advise the applicant of
the desirability of initiating a conference
for the Pacific walrus to help fulfill the
applicant’s obligations under the
Endangered Species Act for the 5-year
period of the final rule.
Response: The Service agrees with
this comment. Since the status review of
Pacific walrus was published, we have
advised the applicant and the action
agencies for Industry projects that, when
applicable and appropriate, they have
the option to initiate a conference with
the Service regarding Pacific walrus.
Comment 2: Prior to issuing the final
rule, the Service should describe all
updated information for the four
offshore oil and gas industry sites
(Northstar, Liberty, Oooguruk and
Nikaitchuq), assess the risk of an oil
spill to polar bears at Oooguruk and
Nikaitchuq, and reassess the risk of an
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
47044
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
oil spill to polar bears for the Northstar
and Liberty sites, where updated
information is available.
Response: The Service analysis of
Industry activities for this rulemaking
used the best available information and
encapsulates all of the known Industry
activities that will occur in the
geographic region during the 5-year
regulation period. If additional activities
are proposed that were not included in
the Industry petition or otherwise
known at this time, the Service will
evaluate the potential impacts
associated with those projects to
determine whether a given project lies
within the scope of the analysis for
these regulations. It should be noted
that the Service considers spill
probabilities alone insufficient to assess
the risk to polar bears. Therefore, our
risk assessment incorporates the
likelihood that a spill would occur as
well as the potential impacts of such a
spill. We understand that variables for
risk assessment from various offshore
sites will be different; however, our
analysis was not intended to assess risk
of an oil spill from each individual site,
and the Service believes that the
analysis of the Northstar and Liberty
sites led to a valid representation and
analysis of the types of risks polar bears
would encounter if a large spill
occurred in the nearshore areas of the
Beaufort Sea. The rule contains a
discussion of these quantified impacts
as well as qualitative analysis of other
potential sources and sizes of oil spills.
Although spill probabilities for other
offshore facilities, and those in
development, would provide the
Service better insights into the impacts
of oil spills on polar bears and walrus,
oil spill trajectories were unavailable for
these other sites, and the analysis
presented represents the best data and
science available. The Service will
continue to evaluate the potential risk of
these activities as new information
becomes available.
Comment 3: The Service should
require applicants for letters of
authorization under the final rule to
incorporate those updated oil spill
projections in their applications, when
available.
Response: The Service agrees with
this comment, and for those projects
where updated oil spill projections are
available and appropriate to the type of
project, the Service will seek this
information to inform our review of
requests for letters of authorization.
Comment 4: One commenter noted
that one of the seismic survey mitigation
measures requires powering or shutting
down airguns if an aggregation of 12 or
more walruses is detected within the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
160-dB re 1 μPa isopleth. At the same
time, the Service only proposes to
authorize the taking of 10 walruses by
Level B harassment. These numbers are
inconsistent and could result in the
taking of a larger number of walruses
than authorized without the
implementation of mitigation effects.
The commenter suggested the Service
correct this inconsistency.
Response: Although individuals or
groups of a few walruses are
occasionally observed in some areas of
the southern Beaufort Sea, Pacific
walruses are extralimital in the area
covered by these regulations (as
discussed in the body of the rule). The
reference to an aggregation of 12 or more
walruses detected within the 160-dB re
1 μPa isopleth is a stipulation originally
developed for the Chukchi Sea to ensure
that Industry seismic operations not
disturb aggregations of feeding walruses,
potentially displacing animals from
preferred foraging areas. It is not
intended to address a few animals
encountered transiting through an area.
For this rule the Service estimates that
the projected number of takes of Pacific
walruses by Industry will be no more
than 10 takes by harassment per year.
This take estimate is based on historic
Industry monitoring observations. In
addition, based on the projected level of
exploration activity, it is unlikely that
the number of takes will increase
significantly in the next 5 years.
However, we have retained the
mitigation measure to ensure the
protection of walruses on the extremely
remote chance that an aggregation of 12
or more walruses would be
encountered.
Comment 5: The language regarding
consultation with potentially affected
subsistence communities and
subsistence user groups where a POC
[Plan of Cooperation] is relevant is
unclear and should be clarified.
Response: The Service considers
consultation with potentially affected
communities to be a critical activity to
ensure the concerns of the community
are included in the planning process as
well as to ensure the availability of
polar bears and Pacific walruses for
subsistence hunting. The Service will
continue to work with communities and
industry on a case-by-case basis to
provide clarification regarding when
and where a Plan of Cooperation is
needed.
Comment 6: The spill risk assessment
significantly overstates quantified risks
from spills by use of extremely
conservative modeling assumptions.
Response: The Service disagrees with
this comment. Because we consider the
probability of a spill alone to be
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
insufficient to assess the risk to polar
bears, our risk assessment incorporates
the likelihood that a spill would occur
as well as the potential impacts of such
a spill. We understand that variables
and modeling assumptions for risk
assessment from various offshore sites
will be different; however, our analysis
was not intended to assess risk of an oil
spill from each individual site, and the
Service believes that it led to a valid
representation of the types of risks polar
bears would encounter if a large spill
occurred in the nearshore areas of the
Beaufort Sea. The rule contains a
discussion of these quantified impacts,
as well as qualitative analysis of other
potential sources and sizes of oil spills.
The Service will continue to evaluate
the potential risk and potential impacts
of these activities as new information
becomes available.
Comment 7: The incidental take
regulations underestimate impacts to
polar bears and Pacific walruses and fail
to support the Service’s conclusion that
oil and gas activities will have no more
than a negligible impact on small
numbers of polar bears and Pacific
walruses in the Beaufort Sea.
Response: The Service disagrees. The
Service analysis of oil and gas activities
for this rulemaking encapsulates all of
the known oil and gas industry
activities that will occur in the
geographic region during the 5-year
regulation period. If additional activities
are proposed that were not included in
the Industry petition or otherwise
known at this time, the Service will
evaluate the potential impacts
associated with those projects to
determine whether a given project lies
within the scope of the analysis for
these regulations. The Service has
analyzed oil and gas operations taking
into account risk factors to polar bears
and walruses, such as potential habitat
loss due to climate change, hunting,
disease, oil spills, contaminants, and
effects on prey species within the
geographic region.
The Service’s analysis for this
rulemaking also considers cumulative
effects of all oil and gas activities in the
area over time. Cumulative impacts of
oil and gas activities are assessed, in
part, through the information we gain in
monitoring reports, which are required
for each operator under the
authorizations. Incidental take
regulations have been in place in the
Arctic oil and gas fields for the past 13
years. Information from these reports
provides a history of past effects on
walruses and polar bears from
interactions with oil and gas activities.
Information on previous levels of
impact is used to evaluate future
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
impacts from existing and proposed
industry activities and facilities. In
addition, information used in our
cumulative effects assessment includes
research publications and data,
traditional knowledge of polar bear
habitat use, anecdotal observations, and
professional judgment.
Monitoring results indicate little to no
short-term impact on polar bears or
Pacific walruses from oil and gas
activities. We evaluated the sum total of
both subtle and acute impacts likely to
occur from industrial activity and, using
this information, we determined that all
direct and indirect effects, including
cumulative effects, of industrial
activities would not adversely affect the
species through effects on rates of
recruitment or survival. Based on past
monitoring reports, the level of
interaction between Industry and polar
bears and Pacific walrus has been
minimal. Additional information, such
as subsistence harvest levels and
incidental observations of polar bears
near shore, provides evidence that these
populations have not been adversely
affected. For the next 5 years, we
anticipate the level of oil and gas
industry interactions with polar bears
and Pacific walruses will be similar to
interactions of the past years.
Comment 8: The Service conflates
‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘negligible
impact’’ by treating ‘‘small numbers’’ as
being relative to population size. The
Service defines ‘‘small numbers’’ in
such a way that conflates it with the
‘‘negligible impact’’ determination and
impermissibly renders it meaningless.
The number of polar bears that may be
taken pursuant to the rule is not small,
either in an absolute sense or a relative
sense. By relying on this unlawful
standard in the proposed authorizations,
the Service is committing prejudicial
error rendering invalid any final
regulations or LOAs issued.
Response: The Service disagrees. The
Service has determined that the
anticipated number of polar bears and
walruses that are likely to modify their
behavior as a result of oil and gas
industry activity is small (150 takes per
year for polar bears and 10 takes per
year for Pacific walruses). In most cases,
takes are behavioral changes that consist
of temporary, minor behavioral
modifications, which will have no effect
on rates of recruitment or survival.
Other takes will be associated with
deterrence or hazing events. The
Service’s analysis of ‘‘small numbers’’
complies with the agency’s regulatory
definition and is an appropriate
reflection of Congress’ intent. As we
noted during our development of this
definition (48 FR 31220, July 7, 1983),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Congress itself recognized the
‘‘imprecision of the term ‘small
numbers,’ but was unable to offer a
more precise formulation because the
concept is not capable of being
expressed in absolute numerical limits.’’
See H.R. Report No. 97–228 at 19. Thus,
Congress itself focused on the
anticipated effects of the activity on the
species and stated that authorization
should be available to persons ‘‘whose
taking of marine mammals is infrequent,
unavoidable, or accidental.’’ Id.
Comment 9: The Service
underestimates the impacts to polar
bears from industry activities because it
does not adequately account for their
weakened condition as a result of
climate change.
Response: In making this
determination, the Service considered
the best available information regarding
potential impacts of climate change on
polar bears and Pacific walruses and
their habitats. The Service agrees that
climate change will likely serve as an
increasing stressor to polar bears;
however, we conclude that over the 5year regulatory period, it would not
change the amount or nature of
incidental take caused by Industry
described and evaluated here. The
Service will continue to monitor and
evaluate Industry activity impacts to
polar bears as information becomes
available.
Comment 10: The Service’s oil spill
analysis drastically underestimates the
amount of oil that could be spilled as a
result of the authorized activities.
Response: The Service disagrees. The
oil spill estimate used in the regulations
is the best available information for the
Beaufort Sea (the estimate used by the
commenter is for the Chukchi Sea). The
Service evaluated the probability of an
oil spill in relation to the dynamics of
bear presence (geographically and
temporally), and in relation to bear
behavior, physiology, and habitat use
and requirements.
Comment 11: The Service should
model the impacts of a very large oil
spill during exploration drilling. The
estimated spill size used in these
regulations is not appropriate.
Response: No estimate currently
exists for a ‘‘very large oil spill’’ in the
Beaufort Sea. The Service’s analysis was
conducted using the most current oil
spill estimate available. As new
information relevant to these regulations
becomes available, the Service will use
it to analyze impacts of potential spills
to polar bears and walruses.
Comment 12: Due to the Service’s
interpretation of ‘‘small numbers’’ and
‘‘negligible impact’’ in its findings, as
well as the possibility of a very large oil
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47045
spill, the Service’s conclusions that
incidental take ‘‘will not have an
unmitigatable adverse impact on the
availability of such species or stock for
taking for subsistence uses’’ by Alaska
Natives are arbitrary and capricious.
Response: The Service disagrees. For
the same reasons outlined in the
responses above and elsewhere in this
rule, the Service’s finding is fully
supported and meets all statutory
standards. The Service’s finding is
based on the best available information,
such as the polar bear and walrus
harvest data provided by the three
affected communities (Barrow,
Kaktovik, and Nuiqsut) through the
Service’s Marking, Tagging and
Reporting Program. That information
indicates that activities will not have an
unmitigable, adverse impact on the
availability of these species for
subsistence take. We also based our
finding on (1) The results of coastal
aerial surveys conducted within the area
during the past 7 years; (2) direct
observations of polar bears occurring
near bowhead whale carcasses on Barter
Island and on Cross Island during the
annual fall bowhead whaling efforts of
the villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut; (3)
community consultations; (4) locations
of hunting areas; (5) the potential
overlap of hunting areas and Industry
projects; (6) results of monitoring data;
and (7) anecdotal reports of North Slope
residents. The Service has not received
any reports and is unaware of any
information that indicates that polar
bears or walruses are being or will be
deflected or impacted by the expected
level of oil and gas activity in a way that
diminishes their availability for
subsistence use. Furthermore, the
regulatory process will allow the
opportunity for communities to review
operational plans and to make
recommendations for additional
mitigation measures, if necessary.
Comment 13: The proposed rule states
that ‘‘no official concerns have been
voiced by the Native communities with
regard to Industry activities limiting
availability of polar bears or walruses
for subsistence use.’’ However, groups
representing Native people have
repeatedly expressed concern about the
impacts of oil and gas development on
subsistence resources.
Response: Although the Service
agrees that Native communities have
expressed concerns regarding impacts of
oil and gas activities on marine mammal
subsistence resources, in general, the
issue addressed here is whether these
regulations might impact the availability
of polar bears and walruses for taking
for subsistence uses by Alaska Natives
in the Beaufort Sea area. We are not
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
47046
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
aware of any official concerns voiced by
Native communities that industry
activities would do so. Information
received by the Service and received by
Industry during community
consultations as part of their POC
process does not indicate that oil and
gas activities limit the availability of
polar bears and Pacific walruses for
subsistence use in the Beaufort Sea
region.
In addition, the LOA process
identified in the regulations requires
Industry to work with the Native
communities most likely to be affected
to address any impacts to resource
availability. Coordination with the
affected subsistence communities and
development of the POC is the
responsibility of Industry, not the
Service; however, the Service offers
guidance during the process, if
necessary. The requirements and
process for the POC, including the
Services’ right to review and reject the
POC if it does not provide adequate
safeguards to ensure that marine
mammals will remain available for
subsistence use, are described in the
preamble of the rule and reiterated in
the regulations.
Also, as stated in the regulations, the
Service has ongoing cooperative
relationships with the North Slope
Borough and the Inupiat-Inuvialuit
Game Commission, where we work
cooperatively to ensure that data
collected from harvest and research are
used to ensure that polar bears are
available for harvest in the future;
provide information to co-management
partners that allows them to evaluate
harvest relative to their management
agreements and objectives; and provide
information that allows evaluation of
the status, trends, and health of polar
bear populations. This cooperation
includes discussing our Incidental Take
Program with representatives from these
organizations and answering any
concerns they have about Industry
impacts on subsistence uses of polar
bears and walruses.
Comment 14. The Service must
prepare a full environmental impact
statement (EIS) to meet the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
Response: The Service disagrees.
Section 1501.4(b) of the regulations for
NEPA, found at 40 CFR Chapter V,
indicates that, in determining whether
to prepare an EIS, a Federal agency may
prepare an EA and, based on the EA,
make a determination whether to
prepare an EIS. The Department of the
Interior’s policy and procedures for
compliance with NEPA (69 FR 10866;
March 8, 2004) further affirms that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
purpose of an EA is to allow the
responsible official to determine
whether to prepare an EIS or a ‘‘Finding
of No Significant Impact’’ (FONSI). The
Service analyzed the proposed activity,
i.e., issuance of implementing
regulations, in accordance with the
criteria of NEPA and determined that it
does not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. Potential
impacts of these regulations on the
species and the environment, rather
than potential impacts of the oil and gas
activities, were analyzed in the EA
because the Service does not authorize
the actual Industry activities. Those
activities are authorized by other State
and Federal agencies, and would likely
occur even without incidental take
authority. Incidental take regulations
provide the Service with a means of
interacting with Industry to ensure that
the impacts to polar bears and Pacific
walruses are minimal. The analysis in
the EA found that the proposed activity
would have a negligible impact on
Pacific walruses and polar bears and
would not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on subsistence users. Therefore,
in accordance with NEPA, the Service
has issued a FONSI, and an EIS is not
required.
Comment 15: The Service must
consider other reasonable alternatives,
including the exclusion of certain parts
of polar bear critical habitat from the
authorizations and the requirement of
additional mitigation measures, such as
shutdown of offshore exploration
operations in low-visibility conditions.
Response: The Service recognizes
these concerns and has addressed them
in the body of the regulations as
regulatory stipulations rather than
including them as alternatives in the
EA. For example, while we do not
exclude large portions of critical habitat
designated under the ESA, we currently
exclude maternal denning habitat from
industry activity under LOA
stipulations using the 1.6-km (1-mi)
buffer around known dens to limit
disturbance to the maternal den. LOA
stipulations also take into account lowvisibility conditions. Ramp-up
procedures for marine seismic activities
incorporate measures that limit activity
in low-visibility conditions. In addition,
we are working with companies that
will be operating in the marine
environment to test and implement, and
possibly apply, technology such as FLIR
imagery to minimize potential impacts
to Service trust species in low-visibility
conditions in the marine environment.
Comment 16: The Service must
describe a true ‘‘no action’’ alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that represents the absence of industry
activities without MMPA authorization.
Response: The Service disagrees. The
action being considered is the issuance
of incidental take regulations. Therefore,
the ‘‘no action’’ alternative would be not
to issue incidental take regulations.
However, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) states
that the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary), through the Director of the
Service, shall allow the incidental, but
not intentional, taking of small numbers
of marine mammals in response to
requests by U.S. citizens engaged in a
specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) in a specified
geographic region if the Secretary finds
that the total of such taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or stock
and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock for subsistence uses.
Therefore, if a citizen petitions the
Service to promulgate regulations, we
are required to initiate the process and
to make the appropriate findings. If
there is an absence of industry
activities, as stated by this commenter,
there would be no request for incidental
take regulations and, consequently,
there would be no need for any analysis
or alternatives.
Comment 17: The Service must
analyze the cumulative effects of all the
past, present, and likely future activities
and events affecting the polar bear and
walrus in its NEPA analysis.
Response: The Service disagrees.
Consistent with NEPA requirements, the
Service has analyzed all relevant direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects to polar
bears and walruses potentially caused
by known oil and gas activities in the
Beaufort Sea area during the 5-year
regulation period. Examples of these
effects include potential habitat loss,
harassment, lethal take, oil spills,
contaminants, and effects on prey
species. If additional activities are
proposed that were not included in the
Industry petition or otherwise known at
this time, the Service will evaluate the
potential impacts associated with those
projects to determine whether a given
project lies within the scope of the
analysis for these regulations.
Cumulative effects, including climate
change, were analyzed in the context of
making a negligible effect finding for the
final regulations. From the Service
perspective, impacts to polar bears and
walruses will be minimized with
regulations in place because the Service
will have increased ability to work
directly with the Industry operators to
implement mitigation measures.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Cumulative impacts of oil and gas
activities have been assessed, in part,
through the information we have gained
in prior Industry monitoring reports for
the Beaufort Sea, which are required for
each operator under the authorizations.
Information from these reports provides
a history of past Industry effects on
walruses and polar bears from
interactions with oil and gas activities.
In addition, information used in our
cumulative effects assessment includes
research publications and data,
traditional knowledge of polar bear and
walrus habitat use in the area, anecdotal
observations, and professional
judgment. Monitoring results indicate
little short-term impact on polar bears or
Pacific walruses, given these types of
activities. We evaluated the sum total of
both subtle and acute impacts likely to
occur from industrial activity and, using
this information, we determined that all
direct and indirect effects, including
cumulative effects, of industrial
activities during the 5-year regulatory
period would not adversely affect the
species through effects on rates of
recruitment or survival. Past
information indicates that the level of
interaction between Industry and polar
bears and Pacific walruses has been
minimal. Additional information, such
as subsistence harvest levels and
incidental observations of polar bears
near shore, provides evidence that these
populations have not been adversely
affected by oil and gas activities.
The Service is continually involved in
the collection of data to help us
understand how the changing Arctic
environment will affect polar bear and
walrus stocks in Alaska. As we gain a
better understanding of climate change
and other effects on these resources, we
will incorporate the information in
future actions. Ongoing studies are
examining polar bear habitat use,
reproduction, and survival relative to a
changing sea-ice environment. Specific
objectives of the project include:
Determining polar bear habitat
availability and quality, influenced by
ongoing climate change and the
response by polar bears to such change;
the effects of polar bear responses to
climate-induced changes to the sea-ice
environment on body condition of
adults, numbers and sizes of offspring,
and survival of offspring to weaning
(recruitment); and population age
structure. The Service and the USGS are
also conducting multiyear studies of the
walrus population to estimate
population size and investigate habitat
use patterns. Our goal is to continue to
collect or improve on the collection of
the types of information that have been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
useful in assessing cumulative effects in
the past. We anticipate that additional
analysis and the collection of additional
data will be necessary to improve upon
future longer-range impact assessments.
Comment 18: An EIS for the
regulations should also analyze the
impacts of a very large oil spill on polar
bears and pacific walrus in the Beaufort
Sea.
Response: The Service analysis was
conducted using the most current oil
spill estimate available; no estimate
currently exists for a ‘‘very large oil
spill’’ in the Beaufort Sea. As new
information relevant to these regulations
becomes available, the Service will use
it to analyze impacts of potential spills
to polar bears and walruses.
Comment 19: The Service’s intraagency consultation should result in a
jeopardy finding unless the Service can
guarantee that the authorized activities
do not violate the ESA.
Response: Consistent with Section 7
of the ESA and Service policy, the
Service has completed Intra-agency
consultation on these regulations and
issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on July
13, 2011. The BO concluded that
promulgation of these ITRs is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of
any listed or candidate species or
adversely modify their designated
critical habitat.
Comment 20: The proposed
regulations do not meet the Marine
Mammal Protection Act’s requirements
that the permitted activities harm only
small numbers of marine mammals and
have only a negligible impact on the
species.
Response: We disagree. As explained
in the final rule, we anticipate that no
more than 150 nonlethal takes of polar
bears and no more than 10 nonlethal
takes of Pacific walruses will occur per
year as a result of oil and gas activities
associated with these regulations. We
believe these numbers constitute a
‘‘small number,’’ and thus that these
activities will have a negligible impact
on the polar bear and Pacific walrus
populations. Furthermore, the Service
believes that potential impacts to
walruses, polar bears, and the
subsistence use of these resources can
be greatly reduced through the operating
restrictions, monitoring programs, and
adaptive management responses set
forth in this rule.
Comment 21: Polar bears and Pacific
walruses will be heavily impacted by oil
and gas activities.
Response: All anticipated takes will
be nonlethal Level B harassment,
involving only temporary changes in
behavior. The required mitigation and
monitoring measures described in the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47047
regulations are expected to prevent
injurious Level A takes, and thus the
number of lethal takes is projected to be
zero. We do not expect the total of the
disturbances to adversely affect rates of
recruitment or survival in the Southern
Beaufort Sea polar bear or the Pacific
walrus stocks.
By creating a framework that provides
mitigation and monitoring measures
intended to minimize the effects of
Industry activities on polar bears and
walruses, the regulations prevent major
impacts to polar bears and walruses.
The goal of the regulations is to
minimize any potential disturbances
and impacts to polar bears and walruses
that could otherwise result due to
Industry activities by limiting animal—
human interactions and by monitoring
and mitigating any take that may occur.
These requirements also create a
feedback loop to analyze and assess
trends associated with potential effects
on polar bears and walruses that can be
addressed through the LOA process.
Comment 22: Oil drilling safety
technology, such as blow-out
preventers, are flawed and may not
function properly under Arctic
conditions.
Response: The Service appreciates
information that may aid our
determinations for issuing regulations.
These comments, however, are beyond
the scope of this rule and beyond the
petitioner’s request. The Service’s
analysis of Industry activities for this
rulemaking used the best available
information and encapsulates all of the
known Industry activities that will
occur in the geographic region during
the 5-year regulation period. In
considering the risk to polar bears from
potential oil spills, we relied on the best
available information to evaluate the
likelihood a spill might occur and then
reach polar bear habitat when bears
were present. Furthermore, the Service
considers spill probabilities alone
insufficient to assess the risk to polar
bears. Our risk assessment incorporates
the likelihood that a spill may occur as
well as the potential impacts of such a
spill. The Service analyzed oil and gas
operations, taking into account risk
factors to polar bears and walrus, such
as potential habitat loss, harassment,
lethal take, oil spills, contaminants, and
effects on prey species that are directly
related to Industry within the
geographic region.
Comment 23: One commenter stated
that the toxicity and mutagenicity of
volatile hydrocarbons and hydrocarbons
released into the water and soil from the
petroleum and gas industries, when
added to nutritional stress due to global
warming and the long-distance
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47048
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
deposition of pollutants into the Arctic,
would be a highly damaging burden on
polar bears and marine mammal
populations in the Arctic.
Response: The Service agrees that the
release of toxic substances into the
habitat of polar bears and Pacific
walruses may have detrimental effects
upon those animals exposed. The
Service’s analysis acknowledges the
potential for oil spills to occur. The
accidental release of toxic substances,
such as in the case of an oil spill, is an
illegal act. No part of this rule
authorizes the release of toxic
substances into the environment nor the
exposure of wildlife to such toxins. In
these regulations, we evaluated the
probability of an oil spill, the dynamics
of how polar bears or walruses would
interact with a potential spill, both
behaviorally and physiologically, and
the effect of an oil spill on polar bear
and walrus habitat use and
requirements. We determined that any
take of polar bears or walruses would be
negligible. Using this analysis, the
Service has developed mitigation
measures and response plans to
minimize impacts on our trust species
in the event of a spill. The Service
believes that the occurrence of such an
event is minimized by adherence to the
regulatory standards that are in place.
This belief is supported by historical
evidence, which shows that adherence
to oil spill plans and management
practices has resulted in no major spills
in the nearshore area where production
facilities are located and where
exploration activities will occur in the
Beaufort Sea. In the event of a large
spill, we would reassess the impacts to
the polar bear and walrus populations
and reconsider the appropriateness of
authorizations for taking through
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Required Determinations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Considerations
We have prepared an EA in
conjunction with this rulemaking and
have determined that this rulemaking is
not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of
Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA of 1969.
For a copy of the EA, contact the
individual identified above in the
section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT or go to https://
www.regulations.gov.
Endangered Species Act
On May 15, 2008, the Service listed
the polar bear as a threatened species
under the ESA (73 FR 28212), and on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
December 7, 2010 (75 FR 76086), we
designated critical habitat for polar bear
populations in the United States,
effective January 6, 2011. On February
10, 2011, we found that listing the
Pacific walrus as endangered or
threatened was warranted but precluded
by higher priority actions and added
Pacific walrus to our candidate species
list (76 FR 7634). Section 7(a)(1) and (2)
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1) and (2))
direct the Service to review its programs
and to utilize such programs in the
furtherance of the purposes of the ESA
and to ensure that a proposed action is
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of an ESA-listed species or
result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Service
policy requires that candidate species
also be considered when making natural
resource decisions. Candidate species
are treated as if they are proposed for
listing for internal Section 7
compliance. For actions that may result
in adverse effects to candidate species,
the program within the Service
proposing the action would confer with
the appropriate Ecological Services field
office for any actions they would
authorize, fund, or carry out. Consistent
with these statutory requirements, the
Service’s Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife
Field Office has completed Intra-Service
section 7 consultation on these
regulations and has concluded in a BO
issued on July 13, 2011, that the action
is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any listed or candidate
species or adversely modify their
designated critical habitat.
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant and has not reviewed
this rule under Executive Order 12866
(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four
criteria: (a) Whether the rule will have
an annual effect of $100 million or more
on the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government; (b) Whether the rule will
create inconsistencies with other
Federal agencies’ actions; (c) Whether
the rule will materially affect
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan
programs, or the rights and obligations
of their recipients; (d) Whether the rule
raises novel legal or policy issues.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
We have determined that this rule is
not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2),
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule is
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
not likely to result in a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, or government
agencies or have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also determined that this
rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Oil
companies and their contractors
conducting exploration, development,
and production activities in Alaska have
been identified as the only likely
applicants under the regulations.
Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required. In addition,
these potential applicants have not been
identified as small businesses and,
therefore, a Small Entity Compliance
Guide is not required. The analysis for
this rule is available from the individual
identified above in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Takings Implications
This rule does not have takings
implications under Executive Order
12630 because it authorizes the
nonlethal, incidental, but not
intentional, take of walruses and polar
bears by oil and gas Industry companies
and thereby exempts these companies
from civil and criminal liability as long
as they operate in compliance with the
terms of their LOAs. Therefore, a takings
implications assessment is not required.
Federalism Effects
This rule does not contain policies
with Federalism implications sufficient
to warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment under Executive Order
13132. The MMPA gives the Service the
authority and responsibility to protect
walruses and polar bears.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et
seq.), this rule will not ‘‘significantly or
uniquely’’ affect small governments. A
Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. The Service has determined
and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act that this
rulemaking will not impose a cost of
$100 million or more in any given year
on local or State governments or private
entities. This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, i.e., it is not a
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988.
PART 18—MARINE MAMMALS
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information
collection requirements. We may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
The information collection requirements
included in this rule are approved by
the OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). The OMB control number
assigned to these information collection
requirements is 1018–0070, which
expires on January 31, 2014. This
control number covers the information
collection, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in 50 CFR 18, subpart J,
which are associated with the
development and issuance of specific
regulations and LOAs.
47049
■
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3225,
and the Department of the Interior’s
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily
acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes on a
Government-to-Government basis. We
have evaluated possible effects on
federally recognized Alaska Native
tribes. Through the LOA process
identified in the regulations, Industry
initiates a communication process,
culminating in a POC, if warranted,
with the Native communities most
likely to be affected and engages these
communities in numerous informational
meetings.
To facilitate co-management
activities, cooperative agreements have
been completed by the Service, the
ANC, and the EWC. The cooperative
agreements fund a wide variety of
management issues, including:
Commission co-management operations;
biological sampling programs; harvest
monitoring; collection of Native
knowledge in management;
international coordination on
management issues; cooperative
enforcement of the MMPA; and
development of local conservation
plans. To help realize mutual
management goals, the Service, ANC,
and EWC regularly hold meetings to
discuss future expectations and to
outline a shared vision of comanagement.
The Service also has ongoing
cooperative relationships with the North
Slope Borough and the InupiatInuvialuit Game Commission, where we
work cooperatively to ensure that data
collected from harvest and research are
used to ensure that polar bears are
available for harvest in the future;
provide information to co-management
partners that allows them to evaluate
harvest relative to their management
agreements and objectives; and provide
information that allows evaluation of
the status, trends, and health of polar
bear populations.
Civil Justice Reform
The Departmental Solicitor’s Office
has determined that these regulations do
not unduly burden the judicial system
and meet the applicable standards
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Energy Effects
Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain
actions. This rule provides exceptions
from the taking prohibitions of the
MMPA for entities engaged in the
exploration of oil and gas in the
Beaufort Sea and adjacent coast of
Alaska. By providing certainty regarding
compliance with the MMPA, this rule
will have a positive effect on Industry
and its activities. Although the rule
requires Industry to take a number of
actions, these actions have been
undertaken by Industry for many years
as part of similar past regulations.
Therefore, this rule is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use and does not
constitute a significant energy action.
No Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
References
For a list of the references cited in this
rule, see Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–
2010–0098, available at https://
www.regulations.gov.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas
exploration, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Service amends part 18,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1. The authority citation of 50 CFR
part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. Add a new subpart J to part 18 to
read as follows:
■
Subpart J—Nonlethal Taking of Marine
Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas
Exploration, Development, and Production
Activities in the Beaufort Sea and Adjacent
Northern Coast of Alaska
Sec.
18.121 What specified activities does this
subpart cover?
18.122 In what specified geographic region
does this subpart apply?
18.123 When is this subpart effective?
18.124 How do I obtain a Letter of
Authorization?
18.125 What criteria does the Service use to
evaluate Letter of Authorization
requests?
18.126 What does a Letter of Authorization
allow?
18.127 What activities are prohibited?
18.128 What are the mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting requirements?
18.129 What are the information collection
requirements?
Subpart J—Nonlethal Taking of Marine
Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas
Exploration, Development, and
Production Activities in the Beaufort
Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast of
Alaska
§ 18.121 What specified activities does
this subpart cover?
Regulations in this subpart apply to
the nonlethal incidental, but not
intentional, take of small numbers of
polar bears and Pacific walruses by you
(U.S. citizens as defined in § 18.27(c))
while engaged in oil and gas
exploration, development, and
production activities in the Beaufort Sea
and adjacent northern coast of Alaska.
§ 18.122 In what specified geographic
region does this subpart apply?
This subpart applies to the specified
geographic region defined by all
Beaufort Sea waters east of a northsouth line through Point Barrow
(71°23′29″ N, ¥156 °28″30 W, BGN
1944), and up to 200 miles north of
Point Barrow, including all Alaska
coastal areas, State waters, and Outer
Continental Shelf waters east of that line
to the Canadian border. The onshore
region is the same north/south line at
Barrow, 25 miles inland and east to the
Canning River. The Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is not included in the
area covered by this subpart. Figure 1
shows the area where this subpart
applies.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47050
When is this subpart effective?
Regulations in this subpart are
effective from August 3, 2011, through
August 3, 2016, for year-round oil and
gas exploration, development, and
production activities.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
§ 18.124 How do I obtain a Letter of
Authorization?
(a) You must be a U.S. citizen as
defined in § 18.27(c).
(b) If you are conducting an oil and
gas exploration, development, or
production activity in the specified
geographic region described in § 18.122
that may cause the taking of polar bears
or Pacific walruses in execution of those
activities and you want nonlethal
incidental take authorization under this
rule, you must apply for a Letter of
Authorization for each exploration
activity or a Letter of Authorization for
activities in each development or
production area. You must submit the
application for authorization to our
Alaska Regional Director (see 50 CFR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
2.2 for address) at least 90 days prior to
the start of the proposed activity.
(c) Your application for a Letter of
Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) A description of the activity, the
dates and duration of the activity, the
specific location, and the estimated area
affected by that activity, i.e., a plan of
operation.
(2) A site-specific plan to monitor the
effects of the activity on the behavior of
polar bears and Pacific walruses that
may be present during the ongoing
activities (i.e., marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plan). Your
monitoring program must document the
effects to these marine mammals and
estimate the actual level and type of
take. The monitoring requirements
provided by the Service will vary
depending on the activity, the location,
and the time of year.
(3) A site-specific polar bear and/or
walrus awareness and interaction plan.
A polar bear interaction plan for each
operation will outline the steps the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
applicant will take to limit human–bear
interactions, increase site safety, and
minimize impacts to bears.
(4) A Plan of Cooperation (POC) to
mitigate potential conflicts between the
proposed activity and subsistence
hunting, where relevant. Applicants
must consult with potentially affected
subsistence communities along the
Beaufort Sea coast (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut,
and Barrow) and appropriate
subsistence user organizations (the
Eskimo Walrus Commission and the
Alaska Nanuuq (polar bear)
Commission) to discuss the location,
timing, and methods of proposed
operations and support activities and
identify any potential conflicts with
subsistence walrus and polar bear
hunting activities in the communities.
Applications for Letters of
Authorization must include
documentation of all consultations with
potentially affected user groups.
Documentation must include a
summary of any concerns identified by
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
ER03AU11.010
§ 18.123
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
community members and hunter
organizations, and the applicant’s
responses to identified concerns. Some
of these measures may include, but are
not limited to, mitigation measures
described in § 18.128.
(6) Conducting restoration,
remediation, demobilization programs,
and associated activities.
(b) Each Letter of Authorization will
identify conditions or methods that are
specific to the activity and location.
§ 18.125 What criteria does the Service
use to evaluate Letter of Authorization
requests?
§ 18.127
(a) We will evaluate each request for
a Letter of Authorization based on the
specific activity and the specific
geographic location. We will determine
whether the level of activity identified
in the request exceeds that analyzed by
us in considering the number of animals
likely to be taken and evaluating
whether there will be a negligible
impact on the species or an adverse
impact on the availability of the species
for subsistence uses. If the level of
activity is greater, we will reevaluate
our findings to determine if those
findings continue to be appropriate
based on the greater level of activity that
you have requested. Depending on the
results of the evaluation, we may grant
the authorization, add further
conditions, or deny the authorization.
(b) In accordance with § 18.27(f)(5) of
subpart C of this part, we will make
decisions concerning withdrawals of
Letters of Authorization, either on an
individual or class basis, only after
notice and opportunity for public
comment.
(c) The requirement for notice and
public comment in paragraph (b) of this
section will not apply should we
determine that an emergency exists that
poses a significant risk to the well-being
of the species or stocks of polar bears or
Pacific walruses.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
§ 18.126 What does a Letter of
Authorization allow?
(a) Your Letter of Authorization may
allow the nonlethal incidental, but not
intentional, take of polar bears and
Pacific walruses when you are carrying
out one or more of the following
activities:
(1) Conducting geological and
geophysical surveys and associated
activities;
(2) Drilling exploratory wells and
associated activities;
(3) Developing oil fields and
associated activities;
(4) Drilling production wells and
performing production support
operations;
(5) Conducting environmental
monitoring activities associated with
exploration, development, and
production activities to determine
specific impacts of each activity;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
What activities are prohibited?
(a) Intentional take and lethal
incidental take of polar bears or Pacific
walruses; and
(b) Any take that fails to comply with
this part or with the terms and
conditions of your Letter of
Authorization.
§ 18.128 What are the mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements?
(a) Mitigation. Holders of a Letter of
Authorization must use methods and
conduct activities in a manner that
minimizes to the greatest extent
practicable adverse impacts on walruses
and polar bears, their habitat, and on the
availability of these marine mammals
for subsistence uses. Dynamic
management approaches, such as
temporal or spatial limitations in
response to the presence of marine
mammals in a particular place or time
or the occurrence of marine mammals
engaged in a particularly sensitive
activity (such as feeding), must be used
to avoid or minimize interactions with
polar bears, walruses, and subsistence
users of these resources.
(1) All applicants. (i) We require
holders of Letters of Authorization to
cooperate with us and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to
monitor the impacts of oil and gas
exploration, development, and
production activities on polar bears and
Pacific walruses.
(ii) Holders of Letters of Authorization
must designate a qualified individual or
individuals to observe, record, and
report on the effects of their activities on
polar bears and Pacific walruses.
(iii) Holders of Letters of
Authorization must have an approved
polar bear and/or walrus interaction
plan on file with the Service and onsite,
and polar bear awareness training will
also be required of certain personnel.
Interaction plans must include:
(A) The type of activity and, where
and when the activity will occur, i.e., a
plan of operation;
(B) A food and waste management
plan;
(C) Personnel training materials and
procedures;
(D) Site at-risk locations and
situations;
(E) Walrus and bear observation and
reporting procedures; and
(F) Bear and walrus avoidance and
encounter procedures.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47051
(iv) All applicants for a Letter of
Authorization must contact affected
subsistence communities to discuss
potential conflicts caused by location,
timing, and methods of proposed
operations and submit to us a record of
communication that documents these
discussions. If appropriate, the
applicant for a Letter of Authorization
must also submit to us a POC that
ensures that activities will not interfere
with subsistence hunting and that
adverse effects on the availability of
polar bear or Pacific walruses are
minimized (see § 18.124(c)(4)).
(v) If deemed appropriate by the
Service, holders of a Letter of
Authorization will be required to hire
and train polar bear monitors to alert
crew of the presence of polar bears and
initiate adaptive mitigation responses.
(2) Onshore activities. (i) Efforts to
minimize disturbance around known
polar bear dens.—Holders of a Letter of
Authorization must take efforts to limit
disturbance around known polar bear
dens.
(ii) Efforts to locate polar bear dens.—
Holders of a Letter of Authorization
seeking to carry out onshore exploration
activities in known or suspected polar
bear denning habitat during the denning
season (November–April) must make
efforts to locate occupied polar bear
dens within and near proposed areas of
operation, utilizing appropriate tools,
such as, forward-looking infrared (FLIR)
imagery and/or polar bear scent-trained
dogs. All observed or suspected polar
bear dens must be reported to the
Service prior to the initiation of
activities.
(iii) Exclusion zone around known
polar bear dens.—Operators must
observe a 1.6-km (1-mi) operational
exclusion zone around all known polar
bear dens during the denning season
(November–April, or until the female
and cubs leave the areas). Should
previously unknown occupied dens be
discovered within 1.6 km (1 mi) 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.
(iv) Use of a den habitat map
developed by the USGS.—A map of
potential coastal polar bear denning
habitat can be found at: https://
alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/
polar_bears/pubs.html. This measure
ensures that the location of potential
polar bear dens is considered when
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
47052
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
conducting activities in the coastal areas
of the Beaufort Sea.
(v) Timing restrictions.—Operators
must restrict the timing of their activity
to limit disturbance around dens.
(3) Operating conditions for
operational and support vessels. (i)
Operational and support vessels must be
staffed with dedicated marine mammal
observers to alert crew of the presence
of walruses and polar bears and initiate
adaptive mitigation responses.
(ii) At all times, vessels must maintain
the maximum distance possible from
concentrations of walruses or polar
bears. Under no circumstances, other
than an emergency, should any vessel
approach within an 805-m (0.5-mi)
radius of walruses or polar bears
observed on land or ice.
(iii) Vessel operators must take every
precaution to avoid harassment of
concentrations of feeding walruses
when a vessel is operating near these
animals. Vessels should reduce speed
and maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5mi) operational exclusion zone around
feeding walrus groups. Vessels may not
be operated in such a way as to separate
members of a group of walruses from
other members of the group. When
weather conditions require, such as
when visibility drops, vessels should
adjust speed accordingly to avoid the
likelihood of injury to walruses.
(iv) All vessels shall avoid areas of
active or anticipated walrus or polar
bear hunting activity as determined
through community consultations.
(v) We may require the use of trained
marine mammal monitors on the site of
the activity or on board drill ships, drill
rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other
support vessels or vehicles to monitor
the impacts of Industry’s activity on
polar bear and Pacific walruses.
(4) Operating conditions for aircraft.
(i) Operators of support aircraft should,
at all times, conduct their activities at
the maximum distance possible from
concentrations of walruses or polar
bears.
(ii) Under no circumstances, other
than an emergency, should aircraft
operate at an altitude lower than 457 m
(1,500 ft) within 805 m (0.5 mi) of
walruses or polar bears observed on ice
or land. Helicopters may not hover or
circle above such areas or within 805 m
(0.5 mile) of such areas. When weather
conditions do not allow a 457-m (1,500ft) flying altitude, such as during severe
storms or when cloud cover is low,
aircraft may be operated below the 457m (1,500-ft) altitude stipulated above.
However, when aircraft are operated at
altitudes below 457 m (1,500 ft) because
of weather conditions, the operator must
avoid areas of known walrus and polar
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
bear concentrations and should take
precautions to avoid flying directly over
or within 805 m (0.5 mile) of these
areas.
(iii) Plan all aircraft routes to
minimize any potential conflict with
active or anticipated walrus or polar
bear hunting activity as determined
through community consultations.
(5) Additional mitigation measures for
offshore seismic surveys. Any offshore
exploration activity expected to include
the production of pulsed underwater
sounds with sound source levels ≥ 160
dB re 1 μPa will be required to establish
and monitor acoustic exclusion and
disturbance zones and implement
adaptive mitigation measures as follows:
(i) Monitor zones. Establish and
monitor with trained marine mammal
observers an acoustically verified
exclusion zone for walruses
surrounding seismic airgun arrays
where the received level would be ≥ 180
dB re 1 μPa; an acoustically verified
exclusion zone for polar bear
surrounding seismic airgun arrays
where the received level would be ≥ 190
dB re 1 μPa; and an acoustically verified
walrus disturbance zone ahead of and
perpendicular to the seismic vessel
track where the received level would be
≥ 160 dB re 1 μPa.
(ii) Ramp-up procedures. For all
seismic surveys, including airgun
testing, use the following ramp-up
procedures to allow marine mammals to
depart the exclusion zone before seismic
surveying begins:
(A) Visually monitor the exclusion
zone and adjacent waters for the
absence of polar bears and walruses for
at least 30 minutes before initiating
ramp-up procedures. If no polar bears or
walruses are detected, you may initiate
ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate
ramp-up procedures at night or when
you cannot visually monitor the
exclusion zone for marine mammals.
(B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by
firing a single airgun. The preferred
airgun to begin with should be the
smallest airgun, in terms of energy
output (dB) and volume (in3).
(C) Continue ramp-up by gradually
activating additional airguns over a
period of at least 20 minutes, but no
longer than 40 minutes, until the
desired operating level of the airgun
array is obtained.
(iii) Power down/Shut down.
Immediately power down or shut down
the seismic airgun array and/or other
acoustic sources whenever any walruses
are sighted approaching close to or
within the area delineated by the 180–
dB re 1 μPa walrus exclusion zone, or
polar bears are sighted approaching
close to or within the area delineated by
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the 190-dB re 1 μPa polar bear exclusion
zone. If the power-down operation
cannot reduce the received sound
pressure level to 180-dB re 1 μPa
(walrus) or 190-dB re 1 μPa (polar
bears), the operator must immediately
shut down the seismic airgun array and/
or other acoustic sources.
(iv) Emergency shut down. If
observations are made or credible
reports are received that one or more
walruses and/or polar bears are within
the area of the seismic survey and are
in an injured or mortal state, or are
indicating acute distress due to seismic
noise, the seismic airgun array will be
immediately shut down and the Service
contacted. The airgun array will not be
restarted until review and approval has
been given by the Service. The ramp-up
procedures provided in paragraph
(a)(5)(ii) of this section must be followed
when restarting.
(v) Adaptive response for walrus
aggregations. Whenever an aggregation
of 12 or more walruses are detected
within an acoustically verified 160-dB
re 1 μPa disturbance zone ahead of or
perpendicular to the seismic vessel
track, the holder of this Authorization
must:
(A) Immediately power down or
shutdown the seismic airgun array and/
or other acoustic sources to ensure
sound pressure levels at the shortest
distance to the aggregation do not
exceed 160-dB re 1 μPa; and
(B) Not proceed with powering up the
seismic airgun array until it can be
established that there are no walrus
aggregations within the 160-dB zone
based upon ship course, direction, and
distance from last sighting. If shutdown
was required, the ramp-up procedures
provided in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this
section must be followed when
restarting.
(6) Mitigation measures for the
subsistence use of walruses and polar
bears. Holders of Letters of
Authorization must conduct their
activities in a manner that, to the
greatest extent practicable, minimizes
adverse impacts on the availability of
Pacific walruses and polar bears for
subsistence uses.
(i) Community Consultation. Prior to
receipt of a Letter of Authorization,
applicants must consult with potentially
affected communities and appropriate
subsistence user organizations to
discuss potential conflicts with
subsistence walrus and polar bear
hunting caused by the location, timing,
and methods of proposed operations
and support activities (see § 18.124(c)(4)
for details). If community concerns
suggest that the proposed activities may
have an adverse impact on the
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
subsistence uses of these species, the
applicant must address conflict
avoidance issues through a POC as
described below.
(ii) Plan of Cooperation (POC). Where
prescribed, holders of Letters of
Authorization will be required to
develop and implement a Serviceapproved POC. The POC must include:
(A) A description of the procedures by
which the holder of the Letter of
Authorization will work and consult
with potentially affected subsistence
hunters; and
(B) A description of specific measures
that have been or will be taken to avoid
or minimize interference with
subsistence hunting of walruses and
polar bears and to ensure continued
availability of the species for
subsistence use.
(C) The Service will review the POC
to ensure that any potential adverse
effects on the availability of the animals
are minimized. The Service will reject
POCs if they do not provide adequate
safeguards to ensure the least
practicable adverse impact on the
availability of walruses and polar bears
for subsistence use.
(b) Monitoring. Depending on the
location, timing, and nature of proposed
activities, holders of Letters of
Authorization will be required to:
(1) Maintain trained, Serviceapproved, onsite observers to carry out
monitoring programs for polar bears and
walruses necessary for initiating
adaptive mitigation responses.
(i) For offshore activities, Marine
Mammal Observers (MMOs) will be
required on board all operational and
support vessels to alert crew of the
presence of walruses and polar bears
and initiate adaptive mitigation
responses identified in paragraph (a) of
this section, and to carry out specified
monitoring activities identified in the
marine mammal monitoring and
mitigation plan (see paragraph (b)(2) of
this section) necessary to evaluate the
impact of authorized activities on
walruses, polar bears, and the
subsistence use of these subsistence
resources. The MMOs must have
completed a marine mammal observer
training course approved by the Service.
(ii) Polar bear monitors—Polar bear
monitors will be required under the
monitoring plan if polar bears are
known to frequent the area or known
polar bear dens are present in the area.
Monitors will act as an early detection
system in regard to proximate bear
activity to Industry facilities.
(2) Develop and implement a sitespecific, Service-approved, marine
mammal monitoring and mitigation
plan to monitor and evaluate the effects
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
of authorized activities on polar bears,
walruses, and the subsistence use of
these resources. The marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plan must
enumerate the number of walruses and
polar bears encountered during
specified activities, estimate the number
of incidental takes that occurred during
specified exploration activities, and
evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed
mitigation measures.
(3) Cooperate with the Service and
other designated Federal, State, and
local agencies to monitor the impacts of
oil and gas activities in the Beaufort Sea
on walruses or polar bears. Where
insufficient information exists to
evaluate the potential effects of
proposed activities on walruses, polar
bears, and the subsistence use of these
resources, holders of Letters of
Authorization may be required to
participate in joint monitoring and/or
research efforts to address these
information needs and insure the least
practicable impact to these resources.
Information needs in the Beaufort Sea
include, but are not limited to:
(i) Distribution, abundance, and
habitat use patterns of polar bears, and
to a lesser extent walruses in offshore
environments; and
(ii) Cumulative effects of multiple
simultaneous operations on polar bears
and to a lesser extent walruses.
(c) Reporting requirements. Holders of
Letters of Authorization must report the
results of specified monitoring activities
to the Service’s Alaska Regional director
(see 50 CFR 2.2 for address).
(1) For exploratory and development
activities, holders of a Letter of
Authorization must submit a report to
our Alaska Regional Director (Attn:
Marine Mammals Management Office)
within 90 days after completion of
activities. For production activities,
holders of a Letter of Authorization
must submit a report to our Alaska
Regional Director (Attn: Marine
Mammals Management Office) by
January 15 for the preceding year’s
activities. Reports must include, at a
minimum, the following information:
(i) Dates and times of activity;
(ii) Dates and locations of polar bear
or Pacific walrus activity as related to
the monitoring activity; and
(iii) Results of the monitoring
activities required under paragraph
(c)(1)(iv) of this section, including an
estimated level of take.
(iv) Monitoring requirements include,
but are not limited to:
(A) For all activities, all sightings of
polar bears must be recorded.
Information within the sighting report
will include, but is not limited to:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
47053
(1) Date, time, and location of
observation;
(2) Number of bears: sex and age;
(3) Observer name and contact
information;
(4) Weather, visibility, and ice
conditions at the time of observation;
(5) Estimated closest point of
approach for bears from personnel and
facilities;
(6) Industry activity at time of
sighting, possible attractants present;
(7) Bear behavior;
(8) Description of the encounter;
(9) Duration of the encounter; and
(10) Actions taken.
(B) [Reserved].
(v) Activities within the coast of the
geographic region may incorporate daily
polar bear watch logs.
(2) In-season monitoring reports for
offshore exploration activities—(i)
Activity progress reports. Operators
must keep the Service informed on the
progress of authorized activities by:
(A) Notifying the Service at least 48
hours prior to the onset of activities;
(B) Providing weekly progress reports
of authorized activities noting any
significant changes in operating state
and or location; and
(C) Notifying the Service within 48
hours of ending activity.
(ii) Walrus observation reports. The
operator must report, on a weekly basis,
all observations of walruses during any
Industry operation. Information within
the observation report will include, but
is not limited to:
(A) Date, time, and location of each
walrus sighting;
(B) Number of walruses: sex and age;
(C) Observer name and contact
information;
(D) Weather, visibility, and ice
conditions at the time of observation;
(E) Estimated range at closest
approach;
(F) Industry activity at time of
sighting;
(G) Behavior of animals sighted;
(H) Description of the encounter;
(I) Duration of the encounter; and
(J) Actions taken.
(iii) Polar bear observation reports.
The operator must report, within 24
hours, all observations of polar bears
during any Industry operation.
Information within the observation
report will include, but is not limited to:
(A) Date, time, and location of
observation;
(B) Number of bears: sex and age;
(C) Observer name and contact
information;
(D) Weather, visibility, and ice
conditions at the time of observation;
(E) Estimated closest point of
approach for bears from personnel and
facilities;
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
47054
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(F) Industry activity at time of
sighting, possible attractants present;
(G) Bear behavior;
(H) Description of the encounter;
(I) Duration of the encounter; and
(J) Actions taken.
(iv) Notification of incident report.
Reports should include all information
specified under the species observation
report, as well as a full written
description of the encounter and actions
taken by the operator. The operator
must report:
(A) Any incidental lethal take or
injury of a polar bear or walrus
immediately; and
(B) Observations of walruses or polar
bears within prescribed mitigationmonitoring zones to the Service within
24 hours.
(3) After-action monitoring reports.
The results of monitoring efforts
identified in the marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plan must be
submitted to the Service for review
within 90 days of completing the year’s
activities. Results must include, but are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
not limited to, the following
information:
(i) A summary of monitoring effort
including: total hours, total distances,
and distribution through study period;
(ii) Analysis of factors affecting the
visibility and detectability of polar bears
and walruses by specified monitoring;
(iii) Analysis of the distribution,
abundance, and behavior of polar bear
and walrus sightings in relation to date,
location, ice conditions and operational
state; and
(iv) Estimates of take based on density
estimates derived from monitoring and
survey efforts.
§ 18.129 What are the information
collection requirements?
(a) We may not conduct or sponsor
and a person is not required to respond
to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The Office of Management and
Budget has approved the collection of
information contained in this subpart
and assigned control number 1018–
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
0070. You must respond to this
information collection request to obtain
a benefit pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We
will use the information to:
(1) Evaluate the application and
determine whether or not to issue
specific Letters of Authorization; and
(2) Monitor impacts of activities
conducted under the Letters of
Authorization.
(b) You should direct comments
regarding the burden estimate or any
other aspect of this requirement to the
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, Mail Stop
2042–PDM, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240.
Dated: July 14, 2011.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011–19296 Filed 8–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\03AUR3.SGM
03AUR3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47010-47054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19296]
[[Page 47009]]
Vol. 76
Wednesday,
No. 149
August 3, 2011
Part IV
Fish and Wildlife Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 18
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 47010]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098; 71490-1351-0000-L5-FY11]
RIN 1018-AX32
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed
regulations that would authorize the nonlethal, incidental,
unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears and Pacific walruses
during year-round oil and gas industry (Industry) exploration,
development, and production operations in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent
northern coast of Alaska. Industry operations for the covered period
include types of activities similar to those covered by the previous 5-
year Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations that were effective from
August 2, 2006, through August 2, 2011. We find that the total expected
takings of polar bears and Pacific walruses during oil and gas industry
exploration, development, and production activities will have a
negligible impact on these species and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of these species for subsistence use
by Alaska Natives. We base this finding on the results of 17 years of
data on the encounters and interactions between polar bears, Pacific
walruses, and Industry; recent studies of potential effects of Industry
on these species; oil spill risk assessments; potential and documented
Industry impacts on these species; and current information regarding
the natural history and status of polar bears and Pacific walruses.
This rule is effective for 5 years from date of issuance.
DATES: This rule is effective August 3, 2011, and remains effective
through August 3, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The final rule and associated environmental assessment (EA)
are available for viewing at https://https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No, FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098.
Comments and materials received in response to this action are
available for public inspection during normal working hours of 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Office of Marine Mammals
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Perham, Office of Marine Mammals
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone: 907-786-3810 or 1-800-362-5148, or e-
mail: craig_perham@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Immediate Promulgation
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find that we have good
cause to make this rule effective less than 30 days after publication.
Immediate promulgation of the rule will ensure that Industry implements
mitigation measures and monitoring programs in the geographic region
that reduce the risk of lethal and nonlethal effects to polar bears and
Pacific walruses by Industry activities.
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
through the Director of the Service the authority to allow the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals, in response to requests by U.S. citizens [as defined in 50 CFR
18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) in a specified geographic region. According to the MMPA, the
Service (we) shall allow this incidental taking if (1) We make a
finding that the total of such taking for the 5-year regulatory period
will have no more than a negligible impact on these species and will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these
species for taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives, and (2) we
issue regulations that set forth (a) permissible methods of taking, (b)
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species
and their habitat and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses, and (c) requirements for monitoring and reporting. If
regulations allowing such incidental taking are issued, we issue
Letters of Authorization (LOA) to conduct activities under the
provisions of these regulations when requested by citizens of the
United States.
The term ``take,'' as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any
marine mammal. Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, means ``any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) Has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild'' (the MMPA calls this
Level A harassment); ``or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of
behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' (the MMPA calls
this Level B harassment).
The terms ``small numbers,'' ``negligible impact,'' and
``unmitigable adverse impact'' are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e.,
regulations governing small takes of marine mammals incidental to
specified activities) as follows. ``Small numbers'' is defined as ``a
portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a
negligible impact on that species or stock.'' It is necessary to note
that the Service's analysis of ``small numbers'' complies with the
agency's regulatory definition and is an appropriate reflection of
Congress' intent. As was noted during the development of this
definition (48 FR 31220; July 7, 1983), Congress itself recognized the
``imprecision of the term small numbers,'' but was unable to offer a
more precise formulation because the concept is not capable of being
expressed in absolute numerical limits.'' See H.R. Report No. 97-228 at
19. Thus, Congress itself focused on the anticipated effects of the
activity on the species and stated that authorization should be
available to persons ``whose taking of marine mammals is infrequent,
unavoidable, or accidental.''
``Negligible impact'' is ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.'' ``Unmitigable adverse
impact'' means ``an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) Causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly
displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.''
Industry conducts activities such as oil and gas exploration,
development, and production in marine mammal habitat that may result in
the taking of marine mammals. Although Industry is under no legal
requirement to obtain incidental take authorization, since 1993,
Industry has requested, and we have issued, a series of regulations for
incidental take authorization for
[[Page 47011]]
conducting activities in areas of polar bear and walrus habitat. Since
the inception of these incidental take regulations (ITRs), polar bear/
walrus monitoring observations associated with the regulations have
recorded more than 2,000 polar bear observations associated with
Industry activities. The large majority of reported encounters have
been passive observations of bears moving through the oil fields.
Monitoring of Industry activities indicates that encounters with
walruses are insignificant, with only 18 walruses recorded during the
same period.
A detailed history of our past regulations can be found in our most
recent regulation, published on August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926). These
past regulations were published on:
November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60402);
August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42805);
January 28, 1999 (64 FR 4328);
February 3, 2000 (65 FR 5275);
March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16828);
November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66744); and
August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926).
Summary of Current Request
In 2009, the Service received a petition to promulgate a renewal of
regulations for nonlethal incidental take of small numbers of walruses
and polar bears in the Beaufort Sea for a period of 5 years (2011-
2016). The request was submitted on April 22, 2009, by the Alaska Oil
and Gas Association (AOGA) on behalf of its members and other
participating parties. The petition is available at https://www.regulations.gov.
AOGA's application indicates that they request regulations that
will be applicable to any company conducting oil and gas exploration,
development, and production activities as described within the request.
This includes members of AOGA and other parties planning to conduct oil
and gas operations in the geographic region. Members of AOGA
represented in the petition include:
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company;
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation;
BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.;
Chevron USA, Inc.;
Eni Petroleum;
ExxonMobil Production Company;
Flint Hills Resources, Inc.;
Marathon Oil Company;
Pacific Energy Resources Ltd.;
Petro-Canada (Alaska) Inc.;
Petro Star Inc.;
Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Inc.;
Shell Exploration & Production Company;
Statoil Hydro;
Tesoro Alaska Company; and
XTO Energy, Inc.
Other participating parties include ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
(CPAI), CGG Veritas, Brooks Range Petroleum Corporation (BRPC), and
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) Energy Services. The
activities and geographic region specified in AOGA's request, and
considered in these regulations, are described in the ensuing sections
titled ``Description of Geographic Region'' and ``Description of
Activities.''
Prior to issuing regulations at 50 CFR part 18, subpart J, in
response to this request, we must evaluate the level of industrial
activities, their associated potential impacts to polar bears and
Pacific walruses, and their effects on the availability of these
species for subsistence use. The information provided by the
petitioners indicates that projected oil and gas activities over this
timeframe will encompass onshore and offshore exploration, development,
and production activities. The petitioners have also specifically
requested that these regulations be issued for nonlethal take. Industry
has indicated that, through implementation of the mitigation measures,
it is confident a lethal take will not occur. The Service is tasked
with analyzing the impact that lawful oil and gas industry activities
will have on polar bears and walruses during normal operating
procedures. In addition, the potential for impact by the oil and gas
industry outside normal operating conditions warrant an analysis of the
risk of an oil spill and its potential impact on polar bears and
walruses.
Description of Regulations
The regulations include: permissible methods of nonlethal taking;
measures to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the species
and the availability of these species for subsistence uses; and
requirements for monitoring and reporting. These regulations do not
authorize, or ``permit,'' the actual activities associated with oil and
gas exploration, development, and production. Rather, they authorize
the nonlethal incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar
bears and Pacific walruses associated with those activities based on
standards set forth in the MMPA. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are responsible for permitting
activities associated with oil and gas activities in Federal waters and
on Federal lands. The State of Alaska is responsible for permitting
activities on State lands and in State waters.
Under these nonlethal incidental take regulations, persons seeking
taking authorization for particular projects will apply for an LOA to
cover nonlethal take associated with exploration, development, or
production activities pursuant to the regulations. Each group or
individual conducting an oil and gas industry-related activity within
the area covered by these regulations may request an LOA. A separate
LOA is mandatory for each activity. We must receive applications for
LOAs at least 90 days before the activity is to begin.
Applicants must submit a plan to monitor the effects of authorized
activities on polar bears and walruses. Applicants must include in
their LOA request the timeframe of proposed activities, the operating
terms and conditions, a polar bear encounter and interaction plan, and
a marine mammal monitoring plan.
Applicants must also include a Plan of Cooperation (POC) describing
the availability of these species for subsistence use by Alaska Native
communities and how they may be affected by Industry operations. The
purpose of the POC is to ensure that oil and gas activities will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species
or the stock for subsistence uses. The POC must provide the procedures
on how Industry will work with the affected Native communities,
including a description of the necessary actions that will be taken to:
(1) Avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of polar
bears and Pacific walruses; and (2) ensure continued availability of
the species for subsistence use. The POC is further described in
``Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses of
Marine Mammals.''
We will evaluate each request for an LOA based on the specific
activity and specific location, and we may condition the LOA depending
on specific circumstances for that activity and location. For example,
an LOA issued in response to a request to conduct activities in areas
with known, active bear dens or a history of polar bear denning may be
conditioned to require one or more of the following: Forward Looking
Infrared (FLIR) imagery flights to determine the location of active
polar bear dens; avoiding all denning activity by 1 mile; intensified
monitoring in a 1-mile buffer around the den; or avoiding the area
during the denning period. More information on applying for and
receiving an LOA can be found at 50 CFR 18.27(f).
[[Page 47012]]
Description of Geographic Region
The geographic area covered by the requested incidental take
regulations (hereafter referred to as the Beaufort Sea Region)
encompasses all Beaufort Sea waters east of a north-south line through
Point Barrow (71[deg]23'29'' N, -156[deg]28'30'' W, BGN 1944), and up
to 200 miles north of Point Barrow, including all Alaska State waters
and Outer Continental Shelf waters, and east of that line to the
Canadian border. The onshore region is the same north/south line at
Barrow, 25 miles inland and east to the Canning River. The Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge is not included in these regulations. The
geographical extent of these regulations is similar to that in previous
regulations (71 FR 43926; August 2, 2006), where the offshore boundary
is the Beaufort Sea Planning area, approximately 200 miles offshore.
Description of Activities
Activities covered in these regulations include Industry
exploration, development, and production operations of oil and gas
reserves, as well as environmental monitoring associated with these
activities, on the northern coast of Alaska. Throughout the 5 years
that the future regulations will be in place, the petitioners expect
that similar types of oil and gas activities will occur at similar
times of the year as under the prior regulations. Examples of future
Industry activities include the completion of the Alpine Satellite
Development and development of Point Thomson, Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, and
areas in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A). According to
the petitioners, the locations of these operations are anticipated to
be approximately equally divided among the onshore and offshore tracts
presently under lease and to be leased during the period under
consideration.
For the purpose of assessing possible impacts, we anticipate, based
on information provided by the petitioners, that these activities will
occur equally spaced over time and area for the upcoming ice-covered
and open-water seasons. Due to the large number of variables affecting
Industry activities, predicting exact dates and locations of operation
for the open-water and ice-covered seasons is not possible at this
time. However, operators must provide specific dates and locations of
proposed activities prior to receiving an LOA.
Industry-Proposed Activities Considered Under Incidental Take
Regulations
Alaska's North Slope encompasses an area of 88,280 square miles and
currently contains 11 oil and gas field units associated with Industry.
These include the Greater Prudhoe Bay, Duck Island, Badami, Northstar,
Kuparuk River, Colville River, Oooguruk, Tuvaq, Nikaitchuq, Milne
Point, and Point Thomson. These units encompass exploration,
development, and production activities. In addition, some of these
fields include associated satellite oilfields: Sag Delta North, Eider,
North Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Niakuk, Niakuk-Ivashak, Aurora, Midnight
Sun, Borealis, West Beach, Polaris, Orion, Tarn, Tabasco, Palm, West
Sak, Meltwater, Cascade, Schrader Bluff, Sag River, and Alpine.
Exploration Activities
As with previous regulations, exploration activities may occur
onshore or offshore and include: geological surveys; geotechnical site
investigations; reflective seismic exploration; vibrator seismic data
collection; airgun and water gun seismic data collection; explosive
seismic data collection; vertical seismic profiles; sub-sea sediment
sampling; construction and use of drilling structures such as caisson-
retained islands, ice islands, bottom-founded structures [steel
drilling caisson (SDC)], ice pads and ice roads; oil spill prevention,
response, and cleanup; and site restoration and remediation.
Exploration activities could also include the development of staging
facilities. The level of exploration activities is expected to be
similar to the level during the past regulatory periods, although
exploration projects may shift to different locations, particularly the
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A).
The location of new exploration activities within the geographic
region of the rule will, in part, be determined by the following State
and Federal oil and gas lease sales:
State of Alaska Lease Sales
In 1996, the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(ADNR), Oil and Gas Division, adopted an ``area wide'' approach to
leasing. Under area-wide leasing, the State offers all available State
acreage not currently under lease within each area annually. The area
of activity in this petition includes the North Slope and Beaufort Sea
planning areas. Lease sale data are available on the ADNR Web site at:
https://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/index.htm. ndustry activities may
occur on State lease sales during the time period of the requested
action. North Slope Area-wide lease sales are held annually in October.
As of August 2008, there are 774 active leases on the North Slope,
encompassing 971,245 hectares (2.4 million acres), and 224 active
leases in the State waters of the Beaufort Sea, encompassing 249,000
hectares (615,296 acres). The sale on October 22, 2008, resulted in the
sale of 60 tracts for a total of 86,765 hectares (214,400 acres). Eight
lease sales have been held to date. As of July 2008, there are 38
active leases in the Beaufort Sea area, encompassing 38,333 hectares
(94,724 acres). The sale on October 22, 2008, resulted in the sale of
32 tracts for a total of 40,145 hectares (99,200 acres).
Northwest and Northeast Planning Areas of NPR-A
The BLM manages more than 9 million hectares (23 million acres) in
the NPR-A, including the Northwest (3.5 million hectares, 8.8 million
acres), Northeast (1.8 hectares, 4.6 million acres), and South (3.6
million hectares, 9 million acres) Planning Areas. The area of activity
in this petition includes the Northwest and Northeast areas.
Oil and gas lease sales were held in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010.
The 2004 lease sale sold 123 tracts totaling 566,560 hectares (1.4
million acres); the 2006 sale sold 81 tracts covering 380,350 hectares
(939,867 acres); the 2008 sale sold 23 tracts covering 106,013 hectares
(261,964 acres); and the 2010 sale sold 5 tracts covering 11.511
hectares (28,444 acres). From 2000 to 2008, 25 exploratory wells were
drilled in the Northeast and Northwest planning areas of the NPR-A.
Current operator/ownership information is available on the BLM NPR-A
Web site at https://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra.html.
Exploration activities were conducted on the FEX LP company leases in
the Northwest Planning Area between 2006-2008. Exploration may continue
where new areas have been selected. New project elements included
exploration drilling at nine new ice drill pad locations (in the Uugaq,
Aklaq, Aklaqyaaq, and Amaguq prospects), 99 km (62 mi) of new access
corridor, and 34 new water sources.
In the Northeast Planning Area, CPAI applied for permits to begin a
5-year (2006-2011) winter drilling program at 11 sites (Noatak, Nugget,
Cassin and Spark DD prospects), including 177 km (110 mi) of new right-
of-way corridors and 10 new water supply lakes. CPAI is planning to
continue developing its program in the Northeast Planning Area
[[Page 47013]]
throughout the duration of the requested regulations.
Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sales
The BOEMRE manages the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region
encompassing 242 million hectares (600 million acres). In February
2003, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) (now known as the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement or BOEMRE) issued
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for three lease sales
planned for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area: Sale 186, 195, and 202.
Sale 186 was held in 2003, resulting in the leasing of 34 tracts
encompassing 73,576 hectares (181,810 acres). Sale 195 was held in
2005, resulting in the leasing of 117 tracts encompassing 245,760
hectares (607,285 acres). Sale 202 was held in 2007, resulting in the
leasing of 90 tracts covering 198,580 hectares (490,700 acres). Leasing
information from BOEMRE is located at https://www.boemre.gov/alaska/lease/lease.htm. The next lease sale, Lease Sale 217, is planned for
2011. BOEMRE has begun preparing the multiple-sale EIS for these areas.
The Draft EIS was released in November 2008 and is located at https://www.BOEMRE.gov/alaska/ref/EIS%20EA/ArcticMultiSale_209/_DEIS.htm.
While the disposition of the leases is highly speculative at this time,
it is probable that at least some seismic exploration and possibly some
exploratory drilling will take place during the 5-year period of the
regulations.
Exploratory drilling for oil occurs onshore, in inland areas, or in
the offshore environment. Exploratory drilling and associated support
activities and features may include: transportation to site; setup and
relocation of up to 100-person camps and support camps (lights,
generators, snow removal, water plants, wastewater plants, dining
halls, sleeping quarters, mechanical shops, fuel storage, landing
strips, aircraft support, health and safety facilities, data recording
facilities and communication equipment); building gravel pads; building
gravel islands with sandbag and concrete block protection; ice islands;
ice roads; gravel hauling; gravel mine sites; road building; pipelines;
electrical lines; water lines; road maintenance; buildings and
facilities; operating heavy equipment; digging trenches; burying and
covering pipelines; sea lift; water flood; security operations;
dredging; moving floating drill units; helicopter support; and drill
ships such as the Steel Drilling Caisson (SDC), CANMAR Explorer III,
and the Kulluk.
During the regulatory period, exploration activities are
anticipated to occur in the offshore environment and continue in the
current oil field units, including those projects identified by
Industry below.
Point Thomson
The Point Thomson reservoir is approximately 32 km (20 mi) east of
the Badami field. In January 2009, ADNR issued a conditional interim
decision that allows for the drilling of two wells by 2010 and the
commencement of production by 2014. Following startup of production
from Point Thomson in 2014, field development is expected to include
additional liquids production and sale of gas. Field development will
require additional wells, field facilities, and pipelines. The timing
and nature of additional facilities and expansions will depend upon
initial field performance and timing of an Alaska gas pipeline to
export gas off the North Slope.
Ataruq (Two Bits)
The Ataruq project is permitted for construction but, not
completely permitted for operation. This Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas
Corporation project is located about 7.2 km (4.5 mi) northwest of the
Kuparuk River Unit (KRU) Drill Site 2M. The area consists of two
onshore prospects and covers about 2,071 hectares (5,120 acres). It
includes a 6.4-km (4-mi) gravel road and a single gravel pad with
production facilities and up to 20 wells in secondary containment
modules. The processed fluids will be transported to DS 2M via a pipe-
in-a-pipe buried line within the access road. After drilling, the
facility will be normally unmanned.
Shell Offshore Exploration Activities
Shell anticipates conducting an exploration drilling program,
called the Suvulliq Project, on BOEMRE Alaska OCS leases located in the
Beaufort Sea during the arctic drilling seasons of 2011-2016.
Presently, the arctic drilling seasons are generally considered to be
from July through October in the Beaufort Sea. Shell will use a
floating drilling vessel complemented by ice management and oil spill
response (OSR) barges and/or vessels to accomplish exploration and/or
delineation drilling during each arctic drilling season. An open water
program in support of the development of Shell's Beaufort Sea leases
will involve a site clearance and shallow hazards study as well. A
detailed description of an offshore drilling activity of this nature
can be found at: https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm, under
``LOA Applications for Public viewing.''
ION Seismic Activity
ION is planning an open-water seismic program in the late open-
water and into the ice-covered season, which will consist of an
estimated 3,000 miles of 2D seismic line acquisition and site clearance
surveys in the eastern Beaufort Sea. The open-water seismic program
will consist of two vessels, one active in seismic acquisition and the
second providing logistical support and ice breaking capabilities. An
offshore open-water seismic program is proposed to occur between
September through October 2011.
Development Activities
Development activities associated with oil and gas Industry
operations include: road construction; pipeline construction; waterline
construction; gravel pad construction; camp construction (personnel,
dining, lodging, maintenance, water production, wastewater treatment);
transportation (automobile, airplane, and helicopter); runway
construction; installation of electronic equipment; well drilling;
drill rig transport; personnel support; and demobilization,
restoration, and remediation.
Alpine Satellites Development
CPAI has proposed to develop oil and gas from five satellites. Two
proposed satellites known as CD-3 (CD North during exploration) and CD-
4 (CD South) are in the Colville Delta. The CD-3 drill site is located
north of CD-1 (Alpine facility) and is a roadless development accessed
by a gravel airstrip or ice road in winter. The CD-4 drill site is
connected to the main production pad via a gravel road. Production
startup of CD-3 and CD-4 drill sites occurred in late summer 2006.
Three other proposed satellites known as CD-5, CD-6, and CD-7 (Alpine
West, Lookout, and Spark, respectively, during exploration) are in the
NPR-A. Construction of the three NPR-A drill sites is anticipated
during the ITR period. These remaining three drill sites are proposed
to be connected to CD-2 via road and bridge over the Niglilq Channel
from CD-5. The other two drill sites are planned to be connected to CD-
via road; however, the permitting for these scenarios has not been
completed. Development of five drill sites is planned by CPAI in the
immediate future in the Alpine development area and could occur within
the regulatory period. Production for CD-5, CD-6, and CD-7 are
scheduled for 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively.
[[Page 47014]]
Liberty
BPXA is currently in the process of developing the Liberty field,
where the use of ultra extended-reach drilling (uERD) technology will
access an offshore reservoir from existing onshore facilities. The
Liberty reservoir is located in Federal waters in Foggy Island Bay
about 13 km (8 mi) east of the Endicott Satellite Drilling Island
(SDI). Liberty prospect is located approximately 5.5 miles offshore in
20 ft of water. The development of Liberty was first proposed in 1998
when BPXA submitted a plan to BOEMRE (then MMS) for a production
facility on an artificial island in Foggy Island Bay. In 2002, BPXA put
the project on hold to review project design and economics after the
completion of BPXA's Northstar project. In August 2005, BPXA moved the
project onshore to take advantage of advances in extended reach
drilling. Liberty wells will extend as much as 8 miles offshore.
Drilling of the initial Liberty development well and first oil
production is planned to occur during the 5-year period of this rule.
North Shore Development
Brooks Range Petroleum Company (BRPC) is proposing the North Shore
Development Project to produce oil from several relatively small,
isolated hydrocarbon accumulations on the North Slope. The fields are
close to existing Prudhoe Bay infrastructure, where production will
concentrate on the Ivishak and Sag River sands prospects. Horizontal
drilling technology and long-reach wells will be used to maximize
production while minimizing surface impacts. BRPC expects to recover
between five and ten million barrels of oil, and future exploration
success could increase the reserves.
Potential Gas Pipeline
One company is currently proposing to construct a natural gas
pipeline that would transport natural gas from the North Slope to North
American markets. Only a small portion (40 km [25 mi] inland) of a
pipeline would occur within the specified area of activity covered
under this petition. Initial stages of the gas pipeline development,
such as environmental studies and route selection, could occur during
the 5-year period of the requested action.
The project is proposed by the TransCanada Corporation. The Alaska
Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) was passed into law by the State of
Alaska in May 2007. TransCanada Corporation was selected by the State
of Alaska in August 2008 as the exclusive recipient of the AGIA
license. TransCanada Corporation is currently in the planning stages of
developing the Alaska Pipeline Project, which will move natural gas
from Alaska to North American markets. The project is planned to
stretch approximately 2,760 km (1,715 mi) from Prudhoe Bay to the
British Columbia/Alberta border near Boundary Lake. The Alaska Pipeline
Project also includes a gas treatment plant in the Prudhoe Bay area
with associated construction activities including dock/causeway
improvements and barge channel dredging.
Nikaitchuq Unit
The Nikaitchuq Unit is located near Spy Island, north of Oliktok
Point and the Kuparuk River Unit, and northwest of the Milne Point
Unit. Former operator Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corporation drilled three
exploratory wells on and immediately adjacent to Spy Island, 4 miles
north of Oliktok Point in the ice-covered season of 2004-2005. The
current operator, Eni, is moving to develop this site as a future
production area. Future drilling will be from a small gravel island
shoreward of the barrier islands. Additional operations will include
approximately 13 miles of underground pipeline connecting the offshore
sites to a mainland landfall and onshore facilities pad near Oliktok
Point.
Production Activities
Existing North Slope production operations extend from the oilfield
units of Alpine in the west to Point Thomson and Badami in the east.
Badami and Alpine are developments without permanent access roads;
access is available to these fields by airstrips, barges, and seasonal
ice roads. Oil pipelines extend from these fields and connect to the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). North Slope oilfield developments
include a series of major fields and their associated satellite fields.
In some cases a new oilfield discovery has been developed completely
using existing infrastructure. Thus, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield unit
encompasses the Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Niakuk, West Beach, North
Prudhoe Bay, Point McIntyre, Borealis, Midnight Sun, Polaris, Aurora,
and Orion reservoirs, while the Kuparuk oilfield development
incorporates the Kuparuk, West Sak, Tarn, Palm, Tabasco, and Meltwater
oilfields.
Production activities include: personnel transportation
(automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, boats, rolligons, cat trains, and
snowmobiles); and unit operations (building operations, oil production,
oil transport, restoration, remediation, and improvement of oilfield
operations). Production activities are permanent, year-round
activities, whereas exploration and development activities are usually
temporary and seasonal.
Only production units and facilities operated by BP Exploration
Alaska, Inc. and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. have been covered under
previous incidental take regulations (Greater Prudhoe Bay, Endicott,
Milne Point, Badami, Northstar, Kuparuk River, and Alpine,
respectively). Now the Oooguruk field, operated by Pioneer, is
currently producing as well.
Prudhoe Bay Unit
The Prudhoe Bay oilfield is the largest oilfield by production in
North America and ranks among the 20 largest oilfields ever discovered
worldwide. More than 11 billion barrels have been produced from a field
originally estimated to have 25 billion barrels of oil in place. The
Prudhoe Bay field also contains an estimated 26 trillion cubic ft of
recoverable natural gas. More than 1,100 wells are currently in
operation in the greater Prudhoe Bay oilfields, just over 900 of which
are producing oil (others are for gas or water injection).
The total development area in the Prudhoe Bay Unit is approximately
2,785 hectares (6,883 acres). The Base Operations Center on the western
side of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield can accommodate 476 people, the nearby
Main Construction Camp can accommodate up to 680 people, and the
Prudhoe Bay Operations Center on the eastern side of the field houses
up to 488 people. Additional contract or construction personnel can be
housed at facilities in nearby Deadhorse or in temporary camps placed
on existing gravel pads.
Kuparuk River Unit
The Kuparuk oilfield is the second-largest producing oilfield in
North America. More than 2.6 billion barrels of oil are expected to be
produced from this oilfield. The Greater Kuparuk Area includes the
satellite oilfields of Tarn, Palm, Tabasco, West Sak, and Meltwater.
These satellite fields have been developed using existing facilities.
To date, nearly 900 wells have been drilled in the Greater Kuparuk
Area. The total development area in the Greater Kuparuk Area is
approximately 603 hectares (1,508 acres), including 167 km (104 mi) of
gravel roads, 231 km (144 mi) of pipelines, 6 gravel mine sites, and
over 50 gravel pads.
The Kuparuk Operations Center and Kuparuk Construction Camp are
able to accommodate up to 1,200 people. The
[[Page 47015]]
Kuparuk Industrial Center is primarily used for personnel overflow
during the winter in years with a large amount of construction.
Greater Point McIntyre
The Greater Point McIntyre Area encompasses the Point McIntyre
field and nearby satellite fields of West Beach, North Prudhoe Bay,
Niakuk, and Western Niakuk. The Point McIntyre area is located 11.3 km
(7 mi) north of Prudhoe Bay. It was discovered in 1988 and came online
in 1993. BPXA produces the Point McIntyre area from two drill site
gravel pads. The field's production peaked in 1996 at 170,000 barrels
per day, whereas in 2006 production averaged 21,000 barrels per day
with just over 100 wells in operation. Cumulative oil production as of
December 31, 2006, was 738 million barrels of oil equivalent.
Milne Point
Located approximately 56 km (35 mi) northwest of Prudhoe Bay, the
Milne Point oilfield was discovered in 1969 and began production in
1985. The field consists of more than 220 wells drilled from 12 gravel
pads. Milne Point produces from three main fields: Kuparuk, Schrader
Bluff, and Sag River. Cumulative oil production as of December 31,
2006, was 248 million barrels of oil equivalent. The total area of
Milne Point and its satellites is 94.4 hectares (236 acres) of tundra,
including 31 km (19 mi) of gravel roads, 64 km (40 mi) of pipelines,
and one gravel mine site. The Milne Point Operations Center has
accommodations for up to 300 people. It is estimated that the Ugnu
reservoir contains roughly 20 billion barrels of heavy oil in place.
BPXA's reservoir scientists and engineers conservatively estimate that
roughly 10 percent of that resource, or 2 billion barrels, could be
recoverable. Currently, cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS)
technology is being tested at Milne South Pad. CHOPS is part of a
multiyear technology testing and research program initiated at Milne
Point in 2007.
Endicott
The Endicott oilfield is located approximately 16 km (10 mi)
northeast of Prudhoe Bay. It is the first continuously producing
offshore field in the U.S. arctic. The Endicott oilfield was developed
from two manmade gravel islands connected to the mainland by a gravel
causeway. The operations center and processing facilities are located
on the 18-hectare (45-acre) Main Production Island. Approximately 80
wells have been drilled to develop the field. Two satellite fields
drilled from Endicott's Main Production Island access oil from the
Ivishak formation: Eider produces about 110 barrels per day, and Sag
Delta North produces about 117 barrels per day. The total area of
Endicott development is 156.8 hectares (392 acres) of land with 25 km
(15 mi) of roads, 47 km (29 mi) of pipelines, and one gravel mine site.
Approximately 100 people are housed at the Endicott Operations Center.
Badami
Production began from the Badami oilfield in 1998, but has not been
continuous. The Badami field is located approximately 56 km (35 mi)
east of Prudhoe Bay and is currently the most easterly oilfield
development on the North Slope. The Badami development area is
approximately 34 hectares (85 acres) of tundra including 7 km (4.5 mi)
of gravel roads, 56 km (35 mi) of pipeline, one gravel mine site, and
two gravel pads with a total of eight wells. There is no permanent road
connection from Badami to Prudhoe Bay. The pipeline connecting the
Badami oilfield to the common carrier pipeline system at Endicott was
built from an ice road. The cumulative production is five million
barrels of oil equivalent. This field is currently in ``warm storage''
status, i.e., site personnel are minimized and the facility is
maintained at a minimal level. Additionally, it currently is not
producing oil reserves at this time. BPXA recently entered into an
agreement with Savant LLC; under this agreement Savant will drill an
exploration well in the winter of 2009 and potentially add an
additional well in 2010. Depending on the outcome of these drilling
programs, Badami could resume production.
Alpine
Discovered in 1996, the Alpine oilfield began production in
November 2000. Alpine is the westernmost oilfield on the North Slope,
located 50 km (31 mi) west of the Kuparuk oilfield and 14 km (9 mi)
northeast of the village of Nuiqsut. Although the Alpine reservoir
covers 50,264 hectares (124,204 acres), it has been developed from 65.9
hectares (162.92 acres) of pads and associated roads. Alpine features a
combined production pad/drill site and three additional drill sites
with an estimated 172 wells. There is no permanent road connecting
Alpine with the Kuparuk oilfield; small aircraft are used to provide
supplies and crew changeovers. Major resupply activities occur in the
winter, using the ice road that is constructed annually between the two
fields. The Alpine base camp can house approximately 540 employees.
Northstar
The Northstar oilfield was discovered in 1983 and developed by BPXA
in 1995. The offshore oilfield is located 6 km (4 mi) northwest of the
Point McIntyre field and 10 km (6 mi) from Prudhoe Bay in about 39 feet
of water. The 15,360-hectare (38,400-acre) reservoir has now been
developed from a 2-hectare (5-acre) artificial island. Production from
the Northstar reservoir began in late 2001. The 2-hectare (5-acre)
island will eventually contain 19 producing wells, six gas injector
wells, and one solids injection well. A subsea pipeline connects
facilities to the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. Access to Northstar is via
helicopter, hovercraft, and boat.
Oooguruk Unit
The Oooguruk Unit is located adjacent to and immediately northwest
of the Kuparuk River Unit in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea, near
Thetis Island. Unit production began in 2008. Facilities include an
offshore drill site and onshore production facilities pad. In addition,
a subsea 5.7-mile flowline transports produced fluids from the offshore
drill site to shore, where it transitions to an aboveground flowline
supported on vertical support members for 3.9 km (2.4 mi) to the
onshore facilities for approximately 3.3 hectares (8.2 acres). The
offshore drill site (2.4 hectares, 6 acres) is planned to support 48
wells drilled from the Nuiqsut and Kuparuk reservoirs. The wells are
contained in well bay modules, with capacity for an additional 12
wells, if needed. Pioneer is additionally proposing production
facilities west of KRU drill site 3S on State oil and gas leases. The
contemplated facilities consist of two drill sites near the Colville
River delta mouth, a tie-in pad adjacent to DS-3S, gravel roads, flow
lines, and power lines. Drilling of the initial appraisal well is
planned to start in 2013, with first oil production as early as 2015.
During the time period of the previous ITRs (2006-2011), three
development projects were described as possibly moving into the
production phase. Currently, only Oooguruk is producing. The two other
developments, Nikaitchuq and the Alpine West Development, have not
begun to produce oil to their fullest capacity. Concurrently, there are
two additional developments that could be producing oil during the
regulatory period. They are the Liberty and North Shore developments.
[[Page 47016]]
Proposed production activities will increase the total area of the
Industrial footprint by the addition of new facilities, such as drill
pads, pipelines, and support facilities, in the geographic region;
however, oil production volume is expected to continue to decrease
during this 5-year regulatory period, despite new fields initiating
production. This is due to current producing fields reducing output and
new fields not maintaining the loss of that output. Current monitoring
and mitigation measures, described later, will be kept in place.
Evaluation of the Nature and Level of Activities
During the period covered by the regulations, we anticipate the
annual level of activity at existing production facilities, as well as
levels of new annual exploration and development activities, will be
similar to that which occurred under the previous regulations, although
exploration and development may shift to different locations, and new
production facilities will add to the overall Industry footprint.
Additional onshore and offshore production facilities are being
considered within the timeframe of these regulations, potentially
adding to the total permanent activities in the area. The progress is
similar to prior production schedules, but there is a potential
increase in the accumulation of the industrial footprint, with an
increase mainly in onshore facilities.
Biological Information
Pacific Walrus
The Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens), is represented by
a single population of animals inhabiting the shallow continental shelf
waters of the Bering and Chukchi seas. The distribution of Pacific
walruses varies markedly with seasons. During the late-winter breeding
season, walruses are found in areas of the Bering Sea where open leads
(linear openings or cracks in the sea ice), polynyas (areas of open sea
surrounded by sea ice), or areas of broken pack ice occur. Significant
winter concentrations are normally found in the Gulf of Anadyr, the St.
Lawrence Island Polynya, and in an area south of Nunivak Island. In the
spring and early summer, most of the population follows the retreating
pack ice northward into the Chukchi Sea; however, several thousand
animals, primarily adult males, remain in the Bering Sea, utilizing
coastal haulouts during the ice-free season. During the summer months,
walruses are widely distributed across the shallow continental shelf
waters of the Chukchi Sea. Significant summer concentrations are
normally found in the unconsolidated pack ice west of Point Barrow, and
along the northern coastline of Chukotka, Russia, in the vicinity of
Wrangell Island. Small herds of walruses occasionally range east of
Point Barrow into the Beaufort Sea in late summer. As the ice edge
advances southward in the fall, walruses reverse their migration and
re-group on the Bering Sea pack ice.
Population Status
The size of the Pacific walrus population has never been known with
certainty. Based on large sustained harvests in the 18th and 19th
centuries, Fay (1957) speculated that the pre-exploitation population
was represented by a minimum of 200,000 animals. Since that time,
population size is believed to have fluctuated markedly in response to
varying levels of human exploitation. Large-scale commercial harvests
are believed to have reduced the population to 50,000-100,000 animals
in the mid-1950s (Fay et al. 1989). The population appears to have
increased rapidly in size during the 1960s and 1970s in response to
harvest regulations and reductions in hunting pressure (Fay et al.
1989). Between 1975 and 1990, visual aerial surveys were carried out by
the United States and Russia at 5-year intervals, producing population
estimates ranging from 201,039 to 290,000 walruses. In 2006, U.S. and
Russian researchers surveyed walrus groups in the pack ice of the
Bering Sea using thermal imaging systems to detect walruses hauled out
on sea ice and satellite transmitters to account for walruses in the
water. The number of walruses within the surveyed area was estimated at
129,000, with 95 percent confidence limits of 55,000 to 507,000
individuals. Previous aerial survey results are highly variable and not
directly comparable among years because of differences in survey
methods, timing of surveys, segments of the population surveyed, and
incomplete coverage of areas where walrus may have been present.
Because of such issues, existing abundance estimates do not provide a
basis for determining trends in population size.
Changes in walrus population status have also been investigated by
examining changes in biological parameters over time. Based on evidence
of changes in abundance, distribution, condition indices, and life-
history parameters, Fay et al. (1989) and Fay et al. (1997) concluded
that the Pacific walrus population increased greatly in size during the
1960s and 1970s and postulated that the population was approaching, or
had exceeded, the carrying capacity of its environment by the early
1980s. Harvest increased in the 1980s. Changes in the size,
composition, and productivity of the sampled walrus harvest in the
Bering Strait Region of Alaska over this timeframe are consistent with
this hypothesis (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). Harvest levels declined
sharply in the early 1990s, and increased reproductive rates and
earlier maturation in females occurred, suggesting that density-
dependent feedback mechanisms had been relaxed and the population had
likely dropped below carrying capacity (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006).
However, it is unknown whether density-dependent changes in life-
history parameters were mediated by changes in population abundance or
changes in the carrying capacity of the environment (Garlich-Miller et
al. 2006).
Habitat
Walruses rely on floating pack ice as a substrate for resting and
giving birth. Walruses generally require ice thicknesses of 50 cm (20
in) or more to support their weight. Although walruses can break
through ice up to 20 cm (8 in) thick, they usually occupy areas with
natural openings and are not found in areas of extensive, unbroken ice
(Fay 1982). Thus, their concentrations in winter tend to be in areas of
divergent ice flow or along the margins of persistent polynyas.
Concentrations in summer tend to be in areas of unconsolidated pack
ice, usually within 100 km (30 mi) of the leading edge of the ice pack
(Gilbert 1999). When suitable pack ice is not available, walruses haul
out to rest on land. Isolated sites, such as barrier islands, points,
and headlands, are most frequently occupied. Social factors, learned
behavior, and proximity to their prey base are also thought to
influence the location of haulout sites. Traditional walrus haulout
sites in the eastern Chukchi Sea include Cape Thompson, Cape Lisburne,
and Icy Cape. In recent years, the Cape Lisburne haulout site has seen
regular use in late summer. Numerous haulouts also exist along the
northern coastline of Chukotka, and on Wrangell and Herald islands,
which are considered important haul-out areas in September, especially
in years when the pack ice retreats far to the north.
Although capable of diving to deeper depths, walruses are generally
found in shallow waters of 100 m (300 ft) or less, possibly because of
higher productivity of their benthic foods in shallower water. They
feed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates, although Native
[[Page 47017]]
hunters have also reported incidents of walruses preying on seals. Prey
densities are thought to vary across the continental shelf according to
sediment type and structure. Preferred feeding areas are typically
composed of sediments of soft, fine sands. The juxtaposition of ice
over appropriate depths for feeding is especially important for females
and their dependent young that are not capable of deep diving or long
exposure in the water. The mobility of the pack ice is thought to help
prevent walruses from overexploiting their prey resource (Ray et al.
2006). Foraging trips may last for several days, during which time they
dive to the bottom nearly continuously. Most foraging dives to the
bottom last between 5 and 10 minutes, with a relatively short (1-2
minute) surface interval. The intensive tilling of the sea floor by
foraging walruses is thought to have significant influence on the
ecology of the Bering and Chukchi seas. Foraging activity recycles
large quantities of nutrients from the sea floor back into the water
column, provides food for scavenger organisms, and contributes greatly
to the diversity of the benthic community.
Life History
Walruses are long-lived animals with low rates of reproduction.
Females reach sexual maturity at 4-9 years of age. Males become fertile
at 5-7 years of age; however, they are usually unable to compete for
mates until they reach full physical maturity at 15-16 years of age.
Breeding occurs between January and March in the pack ice of the Bering
Sea. Calves are usually born in late April or May the following year
during the northward migration from the Bering Sea to the Chukchi Sea.
Calving areas in the Chukchi Sea extend from the Bering Strait to
latitude 70 [deg]N. (Fay et al. 1984). Calves are capable of entering
the water shortly after birth, but tend to haul out frequently until
their swimming ability and blubber layer are well developed. Newborn
calves are tended closely. They accompany their mother from birth and
are usually not weaned for 2 years or more. Cows brood newborns to aid
in their thermoregulation (Fay and Ray 1968) and carry them on their
back or under their flipper while in the water (Gehnrich 1984). Females
with newborns often join together to form large ``nursery herds''
(Burns 1970). Summer distribution of females and young walruses is
closely tied to the movements of the pack ice relative to feeding
areas. Females give birth to one calf every two or more years. This
reproductive rate is much lower than other pinniped species; however,
some walruses live to age 35-40 and remain reproductively active until
relatively late in life.
Walruses are extremely social and gregarious animals. They tend to
travel in groups and haul out onto ice or land in groups. Walruses
spend approximately one-third of their time hauled out onto land or
ice. Hauled-out walruses tend to lie in close physical contact with
each other. Youngsters often lie on top of the adults. The size of the
hauled out groups can range from a few animals up to several thousand
individuals.
Mortality
Polar bears are known to prey on walrus calves, and killer whales
(Orcinus orca) have been known to take all age classes of walruses
(Frost et al. 1992, Melnikov and Zagrebin 2005). Predation levels are
thought to be highest near terrestrial haulout sites where large
aggregations of walruses can be found; however, few observations exist
for off-shore environs.
Pacific walruses have been hunted by coastal Natives in Alaska and
Chukotka for thousands of years. Exploitation of the Pacific walrus
population by Europeans has also occurred in varying degrees since
first contact. Presently, walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka is
restricted to meet the subsistence needs of aboriginal peoples. The
Service, in partnership with the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC) and the
Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chukotka,
administered subsistence harvest monitoring programs in Alaska and
Chukotka in 2000-2005. Harvest mortality over this timeframe averaged
5,458 walruses per year. This mortality estimate includes corrections
for under-reported harvest and struck and lost animals.
Intra-specific trauma is also a known source of injury and
mortality. Disturbance events can cause walruses to stampede into the
water and have been known to result in injuries and mortalities. The
risk of stampede-related injuries increases with the number of animals
hauled out. Calves and young animals at the perimeter of these herds
are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries.
Distribution and Abundance of Pacific Walruses in the Beaufort Sea
The distribution of Pacific walruses is thought to be influenced
primarily by the extent of the seasonal pack ice. In May and June, most
of the Pacific walrus population migrates through the Bering Strait
into the Chukchi Sea. Walruses tend to migrate into the Chukchi Sea
along lead systems that develop along the northwest coast of Alaska.
Walruses are expected to be closely associated with the southern edge
of the seasonal pack ice during the open water season. By July, large
groups of walruses, up to several thousand animals, can be found along
the edge of the pack ice between Icy Cape and Point Barrow. During
August, the edge of the pack ice generally retreats northward to about
71 [deg]N, but in light ice years, the ice edge can retreat beyond 76
[deg]N. The sea ice normally reaches its minimum (northern) extent in
September. In years when the sea ice retreats beyond the relatively
shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea, some animals
migrate west towards Chukotka, while others have been observed hauling
out along the shoreline between Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne. In
recent years, coastal haulouts in Chukotka have seen regular and
persistent use in the fall. Russian biologists attribute the increased
use of these coastal haulouts to diminishing sea ice habitat. A similar
event was recorded along the Alaskan coastline in August-September
2007, 2009, and 2010, when several thousand animals were reported along
the Chukchi Sea coast between Barrow and Cape Lisburne. The pack ice
usually advances rapidly southward in October, and most walruses are
thought to have moved into the Bering Sea by mid- to late-November.
Although most walruses remain in the Chukchi Sea throughout the
summer months, small numbers of animals occasionally range into the
Beaufort Sea in late summer. A total of 18 walrus sightings has been
reported as a result of Industry monitoring efforts over the past 20
years (Kalxdorff and Bridges 2003, USFWS unpubl. data). Two sightings
occurred in 1996; one involved a single animal observed from a seismic
vessel near Point Barrow, and a second animal was sighted during an
aerial survey approximately 5 miles northwest of Howe Island. In 1997,
another single animal was sighted during an aerial survey approximately
20 miles north of Pingok Island. In 1998, a dead walrus was observed on
Pingok Island being scavenged by polar bears. One walrus was observed
hauled out near the SDC at McCovey in 2002. In 2004, one walrus was
observed 50 m (164 ft) from the Saltwater Treatment Plant, on West
Dock. In addition, walrus have been observed on the armor of Northstar
Island three times since 2001; in 2004, three walrus were observed on
the armor in two separate instances.
[[Page 47018]]
Between 2005 and 2009 additional walruses were recorded.
Climate Change
Analyses of long-term environmental data sets indicate that
substantial reductions in both the extent and thickness of the arctic
sea-ice cover have occurred over the past 40 years. Record minimum sea
ice extent was recorded in 2002, 2005, and again in 2007; sea-ice cover
in 2003 and 2004 was also substantially below the 20-year mean.
Walruses rely on suitable sea ice as a substrate for resting between
foraging bouts, calving, molting, isolation from predators, and
protection from storm events. The juxtaposition of sea ice over
shallow-shelf habitat suitable for benthic feeding is important to
walruses. Recent trends in the Chukchi Sea have resulted in seasonal
sea-ice retreat off the continental shelf and over deep Arctic Ocean
waters, presenting significant adaptive challenges to walruses in the
region. Reasonably foreseeable impacts to walruses as a result of
diminishing sea ice cover include: shifts in range and abundance, such
as hauling out on land and potential movements into the Beaufort Sea;
increased vulnerability to predation and disturbance; declines in prey
species; increased mortality rates resulting from storm events; and
premature separation of females and dependent calves. Secondary effects
on animal health and condition resulting from reductions in suitable
foraging habitat may also influence survivorship and productivity.
Future studies investigating walrus distributions, population status
and trends, and habitat use patterns are important for responding to
walrus conservation and management issues associated with environmental
and habitat changes.
Polar Bear
The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was listed as threatened, range-
wide, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on May 15, 2008, due to
loss of sea ice habitat caused by climate change (73 FR 28212). The
Service published a final special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA
for the polar bear on December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76249), which provides
for measures that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of
polar bears. This means that this special 4(d) rule: (a) In most
instances, adopts the conservation regulatory requirements of the MMPA
and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) for the polar bear as the appropriate
regulatory provisions for the polar bear; (b) provides that incidental,
nonlethal take of polar bears resulting from activities outside the
bear's current range is not prohibited under the ESA; (c) clarifies
that the special rule does not alter the Section 7 consultation
requirements of the ESA; and (d) applies the standard ESA protections
for threatened species when an activity is not covered by an MMPA or
CITES authorization or exemption.
Polar bears occur throughout the arctic. In Alaska, they have been
observed as far south in the eastern Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island
and the Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971). However, they are most commonly
found within 180 miles of the Alaskan coast of the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas, from the Bering Strait to the Canadian border. Two stocks occur
in Alaska: (1) The Chukchi-Bering seas stock (CS); and (2) the Southern
Beaufort Sea stock (SBS). A summary of the CS and SBS polar bear stocks
are described below. A detailed description of the CS and SBS polar
bear stocks can be found in the ``Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar
Bear (Ursus maritimus)'' (https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm).
Management and conservation concerns for the SBS and CS polar bear
populations include: Climate change, which continues to increase both
the expanse and duration of open water in summer and fall; human
activities within the near-shore environment, including oil and gas
activities; atmospheric and oceanic transport of contaminants into the
Arctic; and over-harvest, should polar bear stocks become nutritionally
stressed or decline due to some combination of the aforementioned
threats.
Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS)
The SBS polar bear population is shared between Canada and Alaska.
Radio-telemetry data, combined with earlier tag returns from harvested
bears, suggest that the SBS region comprised a single population with a
western boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an eastern boundary near
Pearce Point, Northwest Territories, Canada. Early estimates from the
mid-1980s suggested the size of the SBS population was approximately
1,800 polar bears, although uneven sampling was known to compromise the
accuracy of that estimate. A population analysis of the SBS stock was
completed in June 2006 through joint research coordinated between the
United States and Canada. That analysis indicated the population of the
region between Icy Cape and Pearce Point is now approximately 1,500
polar bears (95 percent confidence intervals approximately 1,000-
2,000). Although the confidence intervals of the current population
estimate overlap the previous p