[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 7 (Monday, January 13, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2718-2735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00450]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-0147; FXES111607MRG01-256-FF07CAMM00]
Marine Mammals; Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for
the Southern Beaufort Sea Stock of Polar Bears During Well Remediation
Activities, North Slope of Alaska; Draft Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of application; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; notice of availability of draft environmental
assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a
request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act from the Bureau of Land
Management, propose to authorize nonlethal incidental take by
harassment of small numbers of Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears
(Ursus maritimus) for 1 year from the date of issuance of the
incidental harassment authorization (IHA). The applicant requested this
authorization for take by harassment that may result from activities
associated with oil well plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow
trail, pad, and airstrip construction, and summer cleanup activities in
the North Slope Borough of Alaska between Wainwright and Oliktok. This
proposed authorization, if finalized, will be for up to 12 takes of
polar bears by Level B harassment. No Level A harassment or lethal take
is requested, expected, or proposed to be authorized. We invite
comments on the proposed IHA, the application package, draft
environmental assessment, and related documents from the public and
local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 12, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: You may view documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-0147.
Alternatively, you may request these documents from the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment submission: You may submit comments on the proposed
authorization by one of the following methods:
Electronic submission: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-
0147.
U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2024-0147, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W),
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We will post all comments at https://www.regulations.gov. You may
request that we withhold personal identifying information from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. See
Request for Public Comments for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hamilton, by email at
[email protected], by telephone at 907-786-3800, or by U.S. mail
at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 341, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et
[[Page 2719]]
seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking by harassment
of small numbers of marine mammals in response to requests by U.S.
citizens (as defined in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) in part 18, at 50 CFR 18.27(c)) engaged in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) in a specified geographic region during
a period of not more than 1 year. The Secretary has delegated authority
for implementation of the MMPA to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS or we). According to the MMPA, the FWS shall allow this incidental
taking by harassment if we make findings that the total of such taking
for the 1-year period:
(1) is of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock;
(2) will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks; and
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use by Alaska
Natives.
If the requisite findings are made, we issue an authorization that
sets forth the following, where applicable:
(a) permissible methods of taking;
(b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or
stock for subsistence uses; and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking by
harassment, including, in certain circumstances, requirements for the
independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans or other research
proposals.
The term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, any marine mammal.
``Harassment'' for activities other than military readiness activities
or scientific research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal
Government means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in
the wild (the MMPA defines this as ``Level A harassment''), or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (the MMPA defines this as ``Level B harassment'').
The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact''
are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small takes of
marine mammals incidental to specified activities) as follows:
``Negligible impact'' is an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. ``Unmitigable adverse impact''
means an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) that is
likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly
displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27.
However, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates ``small
numbers'' with ``negligible impacts.'' We recognize ``small numbers''
and ``negligible impacts'' as two separate and distinct requirements
when reviewing requests for incidental harassment authorizations (IHA)
under the MMPA (see Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F.
Supp. 2d 1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). Instead, for our small numbers
determination, we estimate the likely number of marine mammals to be
taken and evaluate if that number is small relative to the size of the
species or stock.
The term ``least practicable adverse impact'' is not defined in the
MMPA or its enacting regulations. For this IHA, we ensure the least
practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are
effective in reducing the impact of specified activities, but not so
restrictive as to make specified activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete.
If the requisite findings are made, we shall issue an IHA, which
may set forth the following, where applicable: (i) permissible methods
of taking; (ii) other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence
uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives (if applicable); and (iii)
requirements for monitoring and reporting take by harassment.
Summary of Request
On June 17, 2024, the FWS received a request from the Department of
the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for authorization to
take by nonlethal incidental harassment small numbers of Southern
Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during oil well
plugging and reclamation; soil sampling; snow trail, pad, and airstrip
construction; and summer cleanup activities in the North Slope Borough
of Alaska between Wainwright and Oliktok for a period of 1 year from
the date of issuance, and beginning during the winter of 2024-2025.
Their request also included a proposed Polar Bear Awareness and
Interaction Plan.
The FWS requested further information on June 20, 2024, and July
10, 2024. The BLM submitted clarifying information on July 10, 17, and
23, 2024. The FWS received a revised application on August 26, 2024.
The FWS deemed the revised request dated August 2024 (received August
26, 2024; hereafter referred to as the ``Request'') adequate and
complete on August 27, 2024.
Description of Specified Activities and Specified Geographic Region
The specified activities described in the Request consist of oil
well plugging and reclamation; soil sampling; snow trail, pad, and
airstrip construction; and summer cleanup activities associated with
two legacy well sites in the North Slope Borough of Alaska between
Wainwright and Oliktok (figure 1; BLM 2024).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 2720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JA25.039
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
The BLM subsequently clarified that activities (e.g., resupply,
backhaul of waste, demobilization of equipment) that could occur on
pre-existing gravel roads to the east of the specified geographic
region (i.e., between Oliktok and Prudhoe Bay) are not specified
activities for which BLM requests incidental take authorization.
Fish Creek #1 Legacy Well Reclamation
The Fish Creek #1 Legacy Well (Fish Creek well), located in wetland
tundra approximately 14.5 kilometers (km) (9 miles [mi]) inland from
the coast and approximately 39 km (24 mi) northwest of Nuiqsut, was
drilled in 1949 by the U.S. Navy (figure 1). A concrete pad was built
on pilings for drilling operations, and the cellar was concrete
reinforced with steel matting. No reserve or flare pits are associated
with this well. The well was drilled to a total depth of 2,139 meters
(m) (7,020 feet [ft]), then plugged back to 777 m (2,550 ft) and
sidetracked to a new total depth of 920 m (3,018 ft) (BLM 2024).
In 2020 and 2021, the BLM began and completed soil sampling and
debris removal at Fish Creek well. Sampling work showed areas around
the wellhead with impacted soil and concrete, resulting in 3.1 cubic
meters (m\3\) (4 cubic yards [yd\3\]) of material that were removed for
disposal. The BLM's 2020-2021 cleanup efforts also generated
approximately 29 m\3\ (38 yd\3\) of materials including recyclable
scrap metal 8.4 m\3\ (11 yd\3\) and inert debris 21 m\3\ (27 yd\3\) for
proper disposal. However, due to time constraints encountered during
winter 2021 activities, the petroleum-contaminated soil identified
during the sample efforts was not removed (estimated 3.8 m\3\ [5
yd\3\]). Further in-depth descriptions of previous remediation actions
at the Fish Creek well are provided within the BLM's application (BLM
2024). The proposed project would permanently plug and close the Fish
Creek well and remove all chemicals, fluids, drilling wastes,
contaminated soil, and any remaining scattered surface debris found at
the site. Specific methodology for well plugging and waste collection
are described in the BLM's application (BLM 2024).
Cape Halkett #1 Legacy Well Reclamation
The Cape Halkett #1 well (Cape Halkett well), located about 6.4 km
(4 mi) from the coast and approximately 82 km (51 mi) northwest of
Nuiqsut, was drilled by the U.S. Navy in 1975 (figure 1). The well site
contains extensive wooden pilings that supported an elevated platform
above the water to conduct drilling operations. An open casing extends
0.6 m (2 ft) above ground level. It is located inside a steel framed
and sheeted cellar that has been sheared on the east side and
completely rusted at the base. The cellar contains minor amounts of
metal debris inside and broken cement blocks outside. There is no
reserve pit present. However, two low gravel-bermed areas were
constructed, one around the fuel area and the other for discharge of
drilling waste. The well was originally plugged in 1975 with four
cement plugs set at 2,682 m (8,800 ft), 2,499 m (8,200 ft), and 2,387m
(7,830 ft). The final plug was set with a mix of ArcticSet and Class G
cement from 434 m (1,425 ft) to the surface of the well. Minor
remediation efforts were undertaken in the late 1970s and early 1980;
however, more is required. Sampling activities at the Cape Halkett well
were performed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1989. Results of
the sampling efforts showed elevated levels of total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH), oil and grease concentrations, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes, barium, and chromium. Observations from the USGS
and BLM site visits note a pile of drilling mud and a pile of cuttings
near the well. The total volume of soil removal is not fully known;
however, it
[[Page 2721]]
is not anticipated to be a substantial volume (BLM 2024).
This project would verify and ensure permanent closure of the Cape
Halkett well and remove all chemicals, fluids, drilling wastes,
contaminated soil, and any remaining scattered surface debris found at
the site. Any pilings still exposed above ground would be cut at or
slightly below the ground surface of the excavated areas. Any excavated
areas would be backfilled. Specific methodology for well plugging and
waste collection are described in the BLM's application (BLM 2024).
Snow Trail, Pad, and Airstrip Construction
There are no permanent roads available to directly access either of
the two legacy wells included in this project; therefore, construction
of temporary snow trails is required. Snow trail construction will
begin in January or February 2025, starting with ``prepacking'' a
minimum of 15 centimeters (6 inches) of base snow via all-terrain
smooth-tracked vehicles approved for off-road tundra travel. Prepacking
promotes lower tundra soil temperatures and accelerates freezing of
soils prior to use, thereby helping to protect the tundra during snow
trail and pad grooming, maintenance, and use. Snow will also be packed
around stream crossings to protect stream banks and vegetation. Exact
locations may vary up to 1.6 km (1 mi) on either side of the center
lines of the snow trail routes depicted in figure 1 based on field
conditions. This project will require the use of up to approximately
790 km (491 mi) of 9-m (30-ft) wide snow trails; however, some of the
trails utilized will include annually constructed public-use trail
systems such as the North Slope Borough Community Winter Access Trail
(CWAT) (BLM 2024). The majority of public snow trail usage, including
all trails west of approximately 153[deg]W longitude, will occur only
during demobilization after April 15 when polar bear denning season has
ended. Only snow trails that have been surveyed for maternal dens via
aerial infrared (AIR) (see Maternal Den Surveys) will be used during
the denning season (November to April 15; figure 1). All snow trail
usage will cease with the spring thaw.
A 610-m (2,000-ft) long by 30-m (100-ft) wide snow airstrip will be
constructed at both well sites to allow winter resupply via fixed-wing
aircraft. No fuel will be stored at the airstrips. A 2.4-hectare (6-
acre, 152-m-by-152 m, 500-ft-by-500-ft) snow pad will be constructed at
both well sites to support testing, cleanup, plugging, and other
associated activities. No water will be used for snow trail, pad, or
airstrip construction.
Mobilization, Resupply, and Demobilization
Large equipment, including mobile camp trailers, drill rigs, and
other support equipment and supplies, will be moved west to the Fish
Creek and Cape Halkett well sites from routes originating at either the
2P gravel pad and/or existing pads at Oliktok (figure 1). The specific
route will be determined, in part, by environmental conditions.
However, to be conservative, our analyses assume all routes are used.
Equipment will be hauled along snow trails by appropriate sized
tractors or other similar equipment. In January or February 2025, four
to six trips will be required to haul camp trailers, vehicles, and
drill rig equipment to the well sites, followed by four to six trips to
return equipment during demobilization in April 2025. During
operations, up to 30 additional round trips will be required for
resupply and/or backhaul waste at both well sites. Furthermore, up to
25 winter resupply flights via fixed-wing aircraft will be required at
both well sites (up to 50 total flights).
Following final well plugging, cleanup, inspections, and soil
sampling, all equipment would be demobilized Wainwright, Utqiagvik, or
Atqasuk along routes shown in figure 1. The drill rig and wastes
generated from the well plugging and closure would be transported along
routes to 2P or Oliktok before final transportation for appropriate
disposal. The majority of snow trail and camp cleanup, such as trash
removal and stick-picking, will occur during demobilization, but final
inspections will occur during the summer via helicopter (see Summer
Cleanup and Inspections). Full scope of waste material disposal
procedures is available in the BLM's application (BLM 2024).
Camp Setup
Mobile camps will be required to provide crew lodging during well
site activities. The camp set up at Fish Creek will consist of 20-25
trailers to provide housing, restrooms, kitchen, office space, shop
spaces, and other required facilities for approximately 25 personnel.
At Cape Halkett, 7-10 trailers will be required to provide the same
amenities to 15 personnel. Camps will be established within 1 mile of
the well site based on initial field scouting and environmental
conditions. Generation of potable water from snow and disposal of grey
water will follow Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
guidance and regulation. Project-generated waste such as household
trash, rags, and other used disposable materials will be stored on
location in approved containers to prevent wildlife access until being
incinerated using appropriate equipment or disposed of at a permitted
landfill.
Summer Cleanup and Inspections
The majority of snow trail and camp cleanup, such as trash removal
and stick-picking, will occur during demobilization in spring 2025
(April-May). However, a helicopter will be used for approximately 8-10
days in July and/or August 2025 to inspect and remove any debris left
on the snow trails, pads, airstrip, and well sites. The helicopter will
fly at low elevation (under 50 ft) to conduct inspections. In addition,
the helicopter will land at the well sites for soil sampling (with hand
tools) and final inspections, and to remove surface debris that may
have been missed during winter operations. Approximately 50 helicopter
landings would be expected during summer cleanup, inspections, and
sampling activities.
Maternal Den Surveys
The BLM will conduct two AIR maternal polar bear den surveys prior
to beginning operations to identify any active dens in project areas
that will be utilized during the denning period. This compromises the
north-south snow trail located approximately along 153[deg]W longitude
and all project components to the east of this trail, including the
well sites, lakes, and other snow trails (figure 1). The surveyors will
use AIR cameras on fixed-wing aircraft, with flights flown between 245-
457 m (800-1,500 ft) above ground level at a speed of <185 kilometers
per hour (<115 miles per hour). These surveys will be concentrated on
areas within 1.6 km (1 mi) of project activities that would be suitable
for polar bear denning activity, such as drainages, banks, bluffs, or
other areas of topographic relief. The first survey will be conducted
between December 1 and December 25, 2024, and the second survey will be
conducted between December 15, 2024, and January 10, 2025, with a
minimum of 24 hours between surveys. Sections of the project impact
area that will not be used until after denning season (after April 15)
will not be surveyed.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region
Polar bears are the only species of marine mammal managed by the
FWS likely to be found within the specified
[[Page 2722]]
geographic region. Information on range, stocks, biology, and climate
change impacts on polar bears can be found in appendix A of the
supplemental information (available as described above in ADDRESSES).
Potential Impacts of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals
Surface-Level Impacts on Polar Bears
Disturbance impacts on polar bears will be influenced by the type,
duration, intensity, timing, and location of the source of disturbance.
Disturbance from the specified activities would originate primarily
from aircraft overflights (helicopter and fixed wing), tundra travel,
well site plugging and reclamation, well site soil sampling,
mobilization and demobilization, and cleanup activities. The noises,
sights, and smells produced by these activities could elicit variable
responses from polar bears, ranging from avoidance to attraction. When
disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally by walking,
running, or swimming away from a noise source, or physiologically via
increased heart rates or hormonal stress responses (Harms et al. 1997;
Tempel and Gutierrez 2003). However, individual response to noise
disturbance can be influenced by previous interactions, sex, age, and
maternal status (Anderson and Aars 2008; Dyck and Baydack 2004). Noise
and odors could also attract polar bears to work areas. Attracting
polar bears to these locations could result in human-polar bear
interactions, unintentional harassment, intentional hazing, or possible
lethal take in defense of human life. This proposed IHA, if finalized,
would authorize only the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of
polar bears that may result from the specified activities and would
require mitigation measures to manage attractants in work areas and
reduce the risk of human-polar bear interactions.
Human-Polar Bear Interactions
A larger percentage of polar bears are spending more time on land
during the open-water season, which may increase the risk for human-
polar bear interactions (Atwood et al. 2016; Rode et al. 2022). Polar
bear interaction plans, personnel training, attractants management, and
polar bear monitoring are mitigation measures used to reduce human-
polar bear interactions and minimize the risks to humans and polar
bears when interactions occur. Polar bear interaction plans detail the
policies and procedures that will be implemented by the BLM to avoid
attracting and interacting with polar bears, as well as minimizing
impacts to the polar bears. Interaction plans also detail how to
respond to the presence of polar bears, the chain of command and
communication, and required training for personnel. Efficient
management of attractants (e.g., human food, garbage) can prevent polar
bears from associating humans with food, which mitigates the risk of
human-polar bear interactions (Atwood and Wilder 2021). Information
gained from monitoring polar bears near industrial infrastructure can
be useful for better understanding polar bear distribution, behavior,
and interactions with humans. Technology that may be used to facilitate
detection and monitoring of polar bears includes bear monitors, closed-
circuit television, video cameras, thermal cameras, radar devices, and
motion-detection systems. It is possible that human-polar bear
interactions may occur during the specified activities, and mitigation
measures, as described in the applicant's Polar Bear Awareness and
Interaction Plan, will be implemented by the BLM to minimize the risk
of human-polar bear interactions during the specified activities.
From mid-July to mid-November, SBS stock polar bears can be found
in large numbers and high densities on barrier islands, along the
coastline, and in the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea,
particularly on and around Barter and Cross Islands (Wilson et al.
2017). This distribution leads to a significantly higher number of
human-polar bear interactions on land and at offshore structures during
the open-water season than other times of the year. Polar bears that
remain on the multi-year pack ice are not typically present in the ice-
free areas where vessel traffic occurs, as barges and vessels
associated with industrial activities travel in open water and avoid
large ice floes.
On land, most polar bear observations occur within 2 km (1.2 mi) of
the coastline based on polar bear monitoring reports. Facilities within
the offshore and coastal areas are more likely to be approached by
polar bears, and they may act as physical barriers to polar bear
movements. As polar bears encounter these facilities, the chances for
human-polar bear interactions increase. However, polar bears have
frequently been observed crossing existing roads and causeways, and
they appear to traverse the human-developed areas as easily as the
undeveloped areas based on monitoring reports.
Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Polar Bears
Polar bears experience increased noise and visual stimuli when
fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters fly above them, which may elicit a
biologically significant behavioral response. Sound frequencies
produced by aircraft will likely fall within the hearing range of polar
bears (Nachtigall et al. 2007) and will be audible to polar bears
during flyovers or when operating in proximity to polar bears. Polar
bears likely have acute hearing, with previous sensitivities
demonstrated between 1.4 and 22.5 kilohertz (kHz) (tests were limited
to 22.5 kHz (Nachtigall et al. 2007)). When exposed to high-energy
sound, this hearing range may become impaired temporarily (called
temporary threshold shift, or TTS) or permanently (called permanent
threshold shift, or PTS). Species-specific TTS and PTS thresholds have
not been established for polar bears at this time, but TTS and PTS
thresholds have been established for the general group ``other marine
carnivores,'' which includes polar bears (Southall et al. 2019).
Through a series of systematic modeling procedures and extrapolations,
Southall et al. (2019) generated modified noise exposure thresholds for
both in-air and underwater sound (table 1).
Table 1--Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) Thresholds Established by Southall
et al. (2019) Through Modeling and Extrapolation for ``Other Marine Carnivores,'' Which Includes Polar Bears
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTS PTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air......................... 157 146 170 177 161 176
[[Page 2723]]
Water....................... 199 188 226 219 203 232
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values are weighted for other marine carnivores' hearing thresholds and given in cumulative sound exposure
level (SELCUM dB re 20[micro]Pa in air and SELCUM dB re 1 [micro]Pa in water) for impulsive and nonimpulsive
sounds, and unweighted peak sound pressure level in air (dB re 20[micro]Pa) and water (dB 1[micro]Pa)
(impulsive sounds only).
During a Federal Aviation Administration test, test aircraft
produced sound at all frequencies measured (50 Hz to 10 kHz) (Healy
1974). At frequencies centered at 5 kHz, jets flying at 300 m (984 ft)
produced \1/3\ octave band noise levels of 84 to 124 dB, propeller-
driven aircraft produced 75 to 90 dB, and helicopters produced 60 to 70
dB (Richardson et al. 1995). Thus, the frequency and level of airborne
sounds typically produced by aircraft are unlikely to cause TTS or PTS
unless polar bears are very close to the sound source.
Although neither TTS nor PTS is anticipated during the specified
activities, impacts from aircraft overflights have the potential to
elicit biologically significant behavioral responses from polar bears.
Exposure to aircraft overflights is expected to result in short-term
behavior changes, such as ceasing to rest, walking, or running, and,
therefore, has the potential to be energetically costly. Polar bears
observed during intentional aircraft overflights conducted to study
impacts of aircraft on polar bear responses, with an average flight
altitude of 143 m (469 ft), exhibited biologically meaningful
behavioral responses during 66.6 percent of aircraft overflights. These
behavioral responses were significantly correlated with the aircraft's
altitude, the bear's location (e.g., coastline, barrier island), and
the bear's activity (Quigley 2022; Quigley et al. 2024). Polar bears
associated with dens exhibited various responses when exposed to low-
flying aircraft, ranging from increased head movement and observation
of the disturbance to the initiation of rapid movement and/or den
abandonment (Larson et al. 2020). Aircraft activities can impact polar
bears across all seasons; however, aircraft have a greater potential to
disturb both individuals and groups of polar bears on land during the
summer and fall. These onshore polar bears are primarily fasting or
seeking alternative terrestrial foods (Cherry et al. 2009; Griffen et
al. 2022), and polar bear responses to aircraft overflights may result
in metabolic costs to limited energy reserves. To reduce potential
disturbance of polar bears during aircraft activities, mitigation
measures, such as minimum flight altitudes over polar bears and their
frequently used areas and flight restrictions around known polar bear
aggregations, will be conducted when safe to perform these operations
during aircraft activities.
Effects to Denning Polar Bears
Known polar bear dens around the oil fields and other areas of the
North Slope are monitored by the FWS. These dens may be discovered
opportunistically or during planned surveys for tracking marked polar
bears and detecting polar bear dens. However, these sites are only a
small percentage of the total active polar bear dens for the SBS stock
in any given year. Each year, many entities conducting operations on
the North Slope coordinate with the FWS to conduct surveys to determine
the location of any polar bear dens that may be located in close
proximity to any of the operator's planned activities for that denning
season. Under past IHAs and ITRs (Incidental Take Regulations),
operators have been required to avoid known polar bear dens by 1.6 km
(1 mi). However, an unknown polar bear den may be encountered during
the BLM's activities. In instances when a previously unknown den was
discovered near human activity, the FWS has implemented mitigation
measures such as a 1.6-km (1-mi) activity exclusion zone around the den
and 24-hour monitoring of the den site.
The responses of denning polar bears to disturbance and the
consequences of these responses can vary throughout the denning
process. We divide the denning period into four stages when considering
impacts of disturbance: den establishment, early denning, late denning,
and post-emergence; definitions and descriptions are provided by
Woodruff et al. (2022) and are also located in the 2021-2026 Beaufort
Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021). The stage at which harassment
occurs defines the level of disturbance response (Level B harassment,
Level A harassment, or Lethal) attributed to either the sow or cub(s),
along with the probability of the specific response occurring (see
Denning Analysis).
Impacts of the Specified Activities on Polar Bear Prey Species
Information on the potential impacts of the specified activities on
polar bear prey species can be found in the supplemental information to
this document (available as described in ADDRESSES).
Estimated Take
Definitions of Incidental Take Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
Below we provide definitions of three types of take of polar bears.
The FWS does not anticipate and is not authorizing either Level A
harassment or lethal take as a part of this proposed IHA; however, the
definitions of these take types are provided for context and
background.
Lethal Take
Human activity may result in biologically significant impacts to
polar bears. In the most serious interactions (e.g., vehicle collision,
running over an unknown den causing its collapse), human actions can
result in the mortality of polar bears. We also note that, while not
considered incidental, in situations where there is an imminent threat
to human life, polar bears may be killed. Additionally, though not
considered incidental, polar bears have been accidentally killed during
efforts to deter polar bears from a work area for safety and from
direct chemical exposure (81 FR 52276, August 5, 2016). Unintentional
disturbance of a female polar bear by human activity during the denning
season may cause the female either to abandon her den prematurely with
cubs or abandon her cubs in the den before the cubs can survive on
their
[[Page 2724]]
own. Either scenario may result in the incidental lethal take of the
cubs.
Level A Harassment
Human activity may result in the injury of polar bears. Level A
harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is defined as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.
Numerous actions can cause take by Level A harassment of polar bear
cubs during the denning period, such as creating a disturbance that
separates mothers from dependent cubs (Amstrup 2003), inducing early
den emergence during the late denning period (Amstrup and Gardner 1994;
Rode et al. 2018), instigating early departure from the den site during
the post-emergence period (Andersen et al. 2024), or repeatedly
interrupting the nursing or resting of cubs to the extent that it
impacts the cubs' body condition.
Level B Harassment
Level B harassment for nonmilitary readiness activities means any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to disturb
a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, feeding, or sheltering. Changes in
behavior that disrupt biologically significant behaviors or activities
for the affected animal are indicative of take by Level B harassment
under the MMPA. Such reactions include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Fleeing (running or swimming away from a human or a human
activity);
Displaying a stress-related behavior such as jaw or lip-
popping, front leg stomping, vocalizations, circling, intense staring,
or salivating;
Abandoning or avoiding preferred movement corridors such
as ice floes, leads, polynyas, a segment of coastline, or barrier
islands;
Using a longer or more difficult route of travel instead
of the intended path;
Interrupting breeding, sheltering, or feeding;
Moving away at a fast pace (adult) and cubs struggling to
keep up;
Temporary, short-term cessation of nursing or resting
(cubs);
Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a prolonged period
(adults);
Loss of hunting opportunity due to disturbance of prey; or
Any interruption in normal denning behavior that does not
cause injury, den abandonment, or early departure of the female with
cubs from the den site.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other
behavioral responses may be indicative of take by Level B harassment.
Relatively minor changes in behavior such as the animal raising its
head or temporarily changing its direction of travel are not likely to
disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns, and the FWS does
not view such minor changes in behavior as indicative of a take by
Level B harassment. It is also important to note that eliciting
behavioral responses that equate to take by Level B harassment
repeatedly may result in Level A harassment.
Surface Interactions
We analyzed take by Level B harassment for polar bears that may
potentially be encountered and impacted during the BLM's oil well
plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, pad, and airstrip
construction, and summer cleanup activities within the specified
geographic region.
Impact Area
To assess the area of potential impact from the project activities,
we calculate the area affected by project activities where harassment
is possible. We refer to this area as an impact area. Behavioral
response rates of polar bears to disturbances are highly variable, and
data to support the relationship between distance to polar bears and
disturbance are limited. Dyck and Baydack (2004) found sex-based
differences in the frequencies of vigilance bouts, which involves an
animal raising its head to visually scan its surroundings, by polar
bears in the presence of vehicles on the tundra. However, in their
summary of polar bear behavioral response to ice-breaking vessels in
the Chukchi Sea, Smultea et al. (2016) found no difference between
reactions of males, females with cubs, or females without cubs. During
the FWS's coastal aerial surveys, 99 percent of polar bears that
responded in a way that indicated possible Level B harassment (polar
bears that were running when detected or began to run or swim in
response to the aircraft) did so within 1.6 km (1 mi), as measured from
the ninetieth percentile horizontal detection distance from the flight
line. Similarly, Andersen and Aars (2008) found that female polar bears
with cubs (the most conservative group observed) began to walk or run
away from approaching snowmobiles at a mean distance of 1,534 m (0.95
mi). Thus, while future research into the reaction of polar bears to
anthropogenic disturbance may indicate a different zone of potential
impact is appropriate, the current literature suggests that the 1.6-km
(1.0-mi) impact area will encompass most surface polar bear harassment
events.
Estimated Harassment
We estimated Level B harassment using the spatio-temporally
specific encounter rates and temporally specific harassment rates
derived in the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021)
in conjunction with the specified project activity information. Some
portion of SBS bears may occur within the Chukchi Sea at a given time.
However, the ITR rates do not explicitly account for this possibility,
and the project area for this proposed IHA occurs only within the
geographical boundary of the SBS subpopulation. Therefore, our analyses
account only for SBS bears located within the SBS subpopulation
boundary. Distribution patterns of polar bears along the coast of the
SBS were estimated in Wilson et al. (2017) by dividing the North Slope
Coastline into 10 equally sized grids and applying a Bayesian
hierarchical model based on 14 years of aerial surveys in late summer
and early fall. Wilson et al. (2017) estimated 140 polar bears per week
along the coastline (a measurement that included barrier islands);
however, not with uniform distributions. The study found that
disproportionately high densities of bears occur in grids 6 and 9,
which contain known large congregating areas such as Kaktovik and Cross
Island; thus, the study has required polar bear density correction of
factors in previously issued incidental take authorizations (ITAs). The
vast majority of the coastline within the project area in this proposed
IHA falls within grids 1-4 (although a small portion of the project
area is located outside of Wilson et al.'s (2017) study area near the
City of Wainwright). The Wilson et al. (2017) values for grids 1-4 are
similar to those in the North Slope area where the 2021-2026 Beaufort
Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021) encounter rates were developed;
therefore, we believe those values are applicable to the project area
in this proposed IHA and do not require any correction factor for polar
bear densities in our analyses.
Table 2--Definitions of Variables Used in Harassment Estimates of Polar
Bears on the Coast of the North Slope of Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B...................................... Bears encountered in an impact
area for the entire season.
a...................................... Coastal exposure area.
[[Page 2725]]
ai..................................... Inland exposure area.
r...................................... Occupancy rate.
e...................................... Coastal open-water season bear-
encounter rate in bears/
season.
e...................................... Coastal ice season bear-
encounter rate in bears/
season.
e...................................... Inland open-water season bear-
encounter rate in bears/
season.
e...................................... Inland ice season bear-
encounter rate in bears/
season.
t...................................... Ice season harassment rate.
t...................................... Open-water season harassment
rate.
B...................................... Number of estimated Level B
harassment events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 provides the definition for each variable used in the
formulas to calculate the number of potential harassment events. The
variables defined in table 2 were used in a series of formulas to
ultimately estimate the total harassment from surface-level
interactions. Encounter rates were originally calculated as polar bears
encountered per square km per season. As a part of their Request, the
BLM provided the FWS with digital geospatial files that included the
maximum expected human occupancy (i.e., rate of occupancy
[ro] for each individual structure (e.g., snow trails, snow
pads) of their specified activities for each season of the IHA period.
Using the buffer tool in ArcGIS, we created a spatial file of a 3.2-km
(2-mi) buffer around all snow trails (3.2 km on either side of the
proposed snow trail center line, i.e., 6.4 km [4 mi] total diameter) to
account for up to 1.6-km (1-mi) deviations from the proposed center
line of the routes, and around both well sites to account for the
presently undetermined camp locations (within 1.6 km [1 mi] of well
head). Additionally, we placed a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer around all lakes
that may be potentially utilized during operations. We binned the
structures according to their seasonal occupancy rates by rounding them
up into tenths (10 percent, 20 percent, etc.). We determined the impact
area of each bin by first calculating the area within the buffers of
100-percent occupancy locations. We then removed the area of the 100-
percent occupancy buffers from the project impact area and calculated
the area within the 90-percent occupancy buffers. This iterative
process continued until we calculated the area within all buffers. The
areas of impact were then clipped by coastal and inland zone geospatial
files to determine the coastal areas of impact (ac) and
inland areas of impact (ai) for each occupancy bin. This
process was repeated for both seasons (ice season and open-water [ice-
free] season).
Impact areas were multiplied by the appropriate encounter rate to
obtain the number of polar bears expected to be encountered in the
impact area per season (Bes). Equation 1 provides an example
of the calculation of polar bears encountered in the ice season for an
impact area in the coastal zone.
Equation 1
Bes = ac * eci
To generate the number of estimated Level B harassments for each
area of interest, we multiplied the number of polar bears in the area
of interest per season by the proportion of the season the area is
occupied, the rate of occupancy, and the harassment rate (equation 2).
Equation 2
Bt = Bes * Sp * ro * ti
Aircraft Impacts on Polar Bears
Polar bears in the project area will likely be exposed to the
visual and auditory stimulation associated with the applicant's fixed-
wing and helicopter activities; however, these impacts are likely to be
minimal and short-term. Aircraft activities may cause disruptions in
the normal behavioral patterns of polar bears as either an auditory or
visual stimulus, thereby resulting in incidental Level B harassment. To
reduce the likelihood that polar bears are disturbed by aircraft,
mitigation measures, such as minimum flight altitudes over polar bears
and restrictions on sudden changes to aircraft movements and direction,
will be required if this authorization is finalized. Once mitigated,
such disturbances are expected to have no more than short-term,
temporary, and minor impacts on individual polar bears.
Estimating Harassment Rates of Aircraft Activities
Harassment rates during aircraft activities were estimated using
results from studies of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter overflights
(Quigley 2022; Quigley et al. 2024). In these studies, aerial searches
along the northern coast of Alaska between Point Barrow and the western
Canadian border were flown and polar bears were approached at different
altitudes. Polar bears that did not exhibit behavioral changes
consistent with harassment were then re-approached at progressively
lower altitudes, reaching as low as 38 m (100 ft). Researchers recorded
behavioral changes during these approaches and evaluated if and when
Level B harassment occurred. Covariates examined were polar bear
location (``barrier island'' or ``mainland''), initial behavior
(``active'' or ``inactive''), group size, whether the polar bear
belonged to a family group, and the number of previous overflights
(i.e., how many times the group was re-approached to elicit a
behavioral change). A Bayesian imputation approach accounted for polar
bears that exhibited a behavioral change consistent with harassment on
their first approach, thus lacking an identified altitude at which no
harassment occurred due to a lack of a ``non-harassment'' observation.
Their final model included location, activity level, and the number of
previous overflights as predictors of the altitude at which a polar
bear was harassed. For our aircraft impacts analysis, we used
harassment rates estimated for active polar bears observed on barrier
islands, as they had the highest rates of harassment. We further
assumed that no previous overflights were conducted.
We provide harassment rates for the following five categories of
flights: take-offs, landings, low-altitude flights (defined as those
between 122 m [400 ft] and 305 m [1,000 ft] altitude), mid-altitude
flights (defined as those between 305 m [1,000 ft] and 457 m [1,500 ft]
altitude), and high-altitude flights (defined as those between 457 m
[1,500 ft] and 610 m [2,000 ft] altitude). Harassment rates were
assigned to each of these flight categories using the harassment rate
for the lowest altitude in the category (e.g., for low-altitude
flights, the harassment rate estimated for 122 m [400 ft] was used).
This binning method of using the lowest altitude harassment rate in the
bin allowed our estimates to be inclusive of possible changes in
altitude due to variable flight conditions (table 3).
[[Page 2726]]
Table 3--Harassment Rates for the Five Categories of Flights for Fixed-
Wing Aircraft and Helicopter Overflights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight category Fixed-wing Helicopter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take-offs..................................... 0.99 >0.99
Landings...................................... 0.99 >0.99
Low-Altitude Flights (122-305 m).............. 0.86 >0.99
Mid-Altitude Flights (305-457 m).............. 0.03 0.82
High-Altitude Flights (457-610 m)............. <0.01 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The rate in this table are based on Quigley et al. (2024).
We used the harassment rate associated with 30 m (100 ft) for take-offs
and landings.
Estimating Area of Impact for Aircraft Activities
For each category of the flight path (i.e., take-off, low-altitude
travel, mid-altitude travel, high-altitude travel, and landing), we
calculated an impact area and duration of impact using flight hours or
flight path information provided in the Request. We used flights logs
available through FlightAware (https://www.flightaware.com/), a website
that maintains flight logs in the public domain, to estimate impact
areas and flight hours for take-offs and landings. We estimated a take-
off distance of 2.41 km (1.5 mi) that would be impacted for 10 minutes.
We estimated a landing distance of 4.83 km (3 mi) per 305 m (1,000 ft)
of altitude that would be impacted for 10 minutes per landing. To
estimate the impact area of traveling segments, we subtracted the take-
off and landing areas from the total area of the flight path. The
duration of impact for traveling flights was either provided in the
Request or calculated using the length of the flight and a conservative
flight speed of 129 km per hour (80 mi per hour), which was
approximately 1.5 minutes per 3.22 km (2 mi) of the flight path.
All take-offs, landings, and traveling segments were then spatially
referenced to determine whether they were within the coastal or inland
zones. The coastal zone is defined as the offshore and onshore areas
within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the coastline, and the inland zone is defined
as the onshore area greater than 2 km (1.2 mi) from the coastline. If
no location or flight hour information was provided, flight paths were
approximated based on the information provided in the Request. Of the
flight paths that were described clearly or were addressed through
assumptions, we marked the approximate flight path take-off and landing
locations using ArcGIS Pro, and the flight paths were drawn. Once
spatially referenced, all flight paths were buffered by 1.6 km (1 mi),
which is consistent with aircraft surveys conducted by the FWS and USGS
between August and October during most years from 2000 to 2014
(Schliebe et al. 2008; Atwood et al. 2015; Wilson et al. 2017). In
these surveys, 99 percent of groups of polar bears that exhibited
behavioral responses consistent with Level B harassment were observed
within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the aircraft.
Table 4--Seasonal Polar Bear Encounter Rates by Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice Season (July 19-November 11)................ 0.05 bears/km\2\.
Open-water Season (November 12-July 18)......... 1.48 bears/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inland Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice Season (July 19-November 11)................ 0.004 bears/km\2\.
Open-water Season (November 12-July 18)......... 0.005 bears/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table is adapted from the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR
42982, August 5, 2021).
To calculate the total number of Level B harassment events
estimated due to the specified activities, we calculated the number of
flight hours for each flight category (i.e., take-offs, low-altitude
travel, mid-altitude travel, high-altitude travel, and landings) for
each zone and season combination. These values were then used to
calculate the proportion of the season that aircraft occupied their
impact areas (i.e., take-off area, landing area, or traveling segment
impact areas). This proportion-of-season metric is equivalent to the
occupancy rate (ro) generated for surface-level interaction
harassment estimates. The total impact area for each of the flight
categories was multiplied by the zone and season-specific polar bear
encounter rate to determine the number of polar bears expected in that
area for the season (i.e., Bes, as seen in equation 1). This
number was then multiplied by the proportion of the season to determine
the number of polar bears expected in that area when flights are
occurring, and the appropriate harassment rate based on flight altitude
to estimate the number of polar bears that may be harassed as a result
of the flights (as seen in equation 2). Table 5 shows a summary of
aircraft operations during the specified activities and the values used
to estimate Level B harassment of polar bears during aircraft
operations.
[[Page 2727]]
Table 5--Summary of Aircraft Operations by Season and Activity During the Proposed IHA Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice season (fixed-wing aircraft only) Open-water season (helicopter only)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Inspection--
Activity Winter support-- Winter support-- Site inspection-- Site inspection-- Cape Halkett to Snow trail
Cape Halkett Fish Creek Deadhorse to Cape Deadhorse to Fish Fish Creek inspection and
Halkett Creek cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altitude *................... High............... High............... High............. High.................. High.............. Low
Total Flights................ 25................. 25................. 6................ 5..................... 2................. 12
Proportion of Season......... 0.0026............. 0.0021............. 0.0020........... 0.0012................ 0.00017........... 0.01887
Proportion of Flight in 0.60............... 0.................. .60.............. 0..................... 0.51.............. 0.26
Coastal Zone.
Proportion of Flight in 0.40............... 1.................. .40.............. 1..................... 0.49.............. 0.74
Inland Zone.
Total Encounter Rate (bears/ 0.0316............. 0.004.............. 0.89............. 0.005................. 0.7573............ 0.3885
km\2\/season) **.
Harassment Rate.............. 0.001.............. 0.001.............. 0.05............. 0.05.................. 0.05.............. 0.99
Flight Time Harassment....... 6.570 x 10-\07\.... 6.744 x 10-\08\.... 0.000643......... 2.440 x 10-\06\....... 5.295 x 10-\05\... 0.05909
Total Takeoffs and Landings.. 50................. 50................. 12............... 10.................... 4................. 24
Landing Time/Season.......... 0.001389........... 0.001389........... 0.000725......... 0.000604.............. 0.000242.......... 0.001449
Landing Time Harassment...... 0.0016283.......... 0.0016283.......... 0.025146......... 0.020955.............. 0.008382.......... 0.0502921
Takeoff Time/Season.......... 0.001389........... 0.001389........... 0.000725......... 0.000604.............. 0.000241.......... 0.001449
Takeoff Time Harassment...... 0.001094........... 0.001094........... 0.016893......... 0.014078.............. 0.00563........... 0.03379
Number Level B Harassment of 0.002723........... 0.002723........... 0.042683......... 0.035035.............. 0.014066.......... 0.143164
Activity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of level B harassment events across all aircraft activities.............. 0.240.................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* High-altitude flight is defined as between 457 m [1,500 ft] and 610 m [2,000 ft] altitude. Low altitude is defined as between 122 m [400 ft] and 305 m
[1,000 ft] altitude. There are no mid-altitude flights considered for this project.
** Accounts for unequal encounter rates over coastal and inland zones.
Estimated Harassment From Aircraft Activities
Using the approaches described above, we estimated the total number
of polar bears expected to be harassed by the aircraft activities
during the proposed IHA period as a total of one bear (table 5).
Denning Analysis
Below we provide a complete description and results of the polar
bear den simulation model used to assess impacts to denning polar bears
from disturbance associated with all phases of the specified
activities. In our denning analysis, we used the analytical method
described in the 2023-2024 BLM IHA (88 FR 88943, December 26, 2023).
Additionally, on March 19, 2024, regulations promulgated in the
2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021) were
challenged in Federal Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
issued a remand to FWS to conduct certain additional analysis. As a
result of the Court's remand and ongoing scientific advancements, the
FWS reexamined the denning analysis and incorporated newly available
data since 2021 into the denning analysis model, allowing the continued
inclusion of best available scientific information. Updates
incorporated into the model adjust the impact area that can result in
den disturbance, the probabilities of disturbance, and how FWS reports
probabilities of different levels of take, i.e., Level B harassment,
Level A harassment, and lethal take. Alterations to the denning model
are described in greater detail below.
Den Simulation
We simulated dens across the entire North Slope of Alaska, ranging
from the areas identified as denning habitat (Durner et al. 2006, 2013;
Durner and Atwood 2018) contained within the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) in the west to the Canadian border in the east.
To simulate dens on the landscape, we relied on the estimated number of
dens in three different regions of northern Alaska provided by Atwood
et al. (2020). These included the NPR-A, the area between the Colville
and Canning Rivers (CC), and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Den
simulations for this proposed IHA were conducted following the exact
methodology described previously in the 2023-2024 BLM IHA (88 FR 88943,
December 26, 2023).
Impact Area of Specified Activities
The model developed by Wilson and Durner (2020) provides a template
for estimating the level of potential impact on denning polar bears
during the specified activities while also considering the natural
denning ecology of polar bears in the region. Previous iterations of
the denning analysis model, including those utilized in the 2021-2026
Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021) and 2023-2024 BLM IHA
(88 FR 88943, December 26, 2023), assumed that during all denning
periods, any polar bears within dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) from project
activities could exhibit a disturbance response if exposed to
industrial stimuli. However, for this IHA, we refined that broad
assumption to account for denning data that have been collected
subsequent to the promulgation of the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR. Since
2021, four known dens (monitored in 2022 and 2023) have occurred near
human activity. Of the four newly observed dens, three were extremely
close to human activity (<50 m), yet the sows remained in their dens
until the late denning period. We updated polar bear disturbance
probabilities and litter size distributions with the information from
these dens, then re-examined the historic dens that were used to create
disturbance probabilities. We found that the distances between human
activity and polar bear dens during the early denning period were
considerably closer than those observed during other denning periods.
Specifically, of the 15 dens within the case studies that were exposed
to human activity during the early denning period, only one was
potentially disturbed at a distance greater than 800 meters. This
single den record also had imprecise information on the distance to
human activity, so activity was assumed to occur within 1,610 m of the
den and was likely closer. The historic dens analyzed during the den
establishment, late denning, and post-emergence periods did not follow
this pattern. For those dens, disturbance distances commonly exceeded
805 m. Evidence derived from dens exposed to human activity during the
early denning period, including both new den records and historic dens,
illustrates the reluctance of sows to abandon their maternal den/cubs
in response to exposure to stimuli from nearby activity, and supports
the concept that sows may be more risk tolerant during the early
denning
[[Page 2728]]
period. Additionally, sows may be less affected by sound from outside
activities during the early denning period because dens are typically
closed during that time, which can affect propagation of noise into the
den (Owen et al. 2020). Given this evidence, we modified the denning
analysis model to adjust the impact area for the early denning period
to range from 0 to 805 m. As a result, dens that were simulated to be
within 805 m of human activity could be disturbed during all denning
periods, while dens between 806 and 1610 m way from human activity
could only be disturbed during the den establishment, late denning, and
post-emergence periods.
AIR Surveys
We assumed that all remediation and transit areas that will be
utilized during denning season would have two AIR surveys flown prior
to beginning any operations (figure 1). The first survey would occur
between December 1 and December 25, 2024, and the second survey between
December 15, 2024, and January 10, 2025, with a minimum of 24 hours
between surveys. During each iteration of the model, each AIR survey
was randomly assigned a probability of detecting dens using detection
probabilities previously described in the 2023-2024 BLM IHA (88 FR
88943, December 26, 2023).
Model Implementation
For each iteration of the model, we first determined which dens
were exposed to the specified activities. Dens that were simulated to
be within 805 m (2,641 ft) of human activity could be disturbed during
all denning periods, while dens within 806-1610 m (2,644-5,282 ft) of
human activity could only be disturbed during the den establishment,
late denning, and post-emergence periods. Dens detected during AIR
survey were excluded if activity did not occur prior to AIR survey. We
identified the stage in the denning period when the exposure occurred
based on the date range of the activities the den was exposed to: den
establishment (i.e., initial entrance into den until cubs are born),
early denning (i.e., birth of cubs until they are 60 days old), late
denning (i.e., date cubs are 60 days old until den emergence) and post-
emergence (i.e., the date of den emergence until permanent departure
from the den site). We then determined whether the exposure elicited a
response by the denning polar bear based on probabilities derived from
the reviewed case studies (Woodruff et al. 2022a), which were updated
with data from the dens monitored in 2022 and 2023 using the methods
described in Woodruff et al. (2022a).
Specifically, we divided the number of cases that documented
responses associated with either a Level B harassment (i.e., potential
to cause a disruption of behavioral patterns), Level A harassment
(i.e., potential to injure an animal), or lethal take (e.g., cub
abandonment) of polar bears by the total number of cases with that
combination of period and exposure type (table 6). Level B harassment
was applicable to both adults and cubs, if present, whereas Level A
harassment and lethal take were applicable to only cubs. AIR surveys
were not considered to be a source of potential impact. In thousands of
hours of AIR surveys conducted in northern Alaska over the last decade,
we are not aware of a single instance of a polar bear abandoning its
den during the early denning period due to an AIR survey overflight.
These responses would be readily observable on the thermal cameras, and
the fact that none have been observed indicates that den abandonment
very likely does not occur given the brief duration of the aircraft
overflight and the distance and altitude of the aircraft from the den
site. Recent peer-reviewed research further supports the model
assumption that AIR surveys are not a source of harassment (Quigley et
al. 2024).
For dens exposed to activity, we used a multinomial distribution
with the probabilities of different levels of take for that period
(table 6) to determine whether a den was disturbed or not. If a lethal
take was simulated to occur, a den was not allowed to be disturbed
again during the subsequent denning periods because the outcome of that
denning event was already determined.
The level of impact associated with a disturbance varied according
to the severity and timing of the exposure (table 6). Exposures that
resulted in emergence from dens prior to cubs reaching 60 days of age
were considered lethal takes of cubs. If an exposure resulted in a
Level A harassment during the late denning period, we first assigned
that den a new random emergence date from a uniform distribution that
ranged between the first date of exposure during the late denning
period and the original den emergence date. We then determined whether
that den was disturbed during the post-emergence period, but the
probability of disturbance was dependent on whether or not a den was
disturbed (i.e., Level A harassment) during the late denning period
(table 6). If an exposure resulted in a Level A harassment during the
post-emergence period, we assigned the den a new time spent at the den
site post-emergence from a uniform distribution that ranged from 0 to
the original simulated time at the den post-emergence.
Recent research suggests that litter survival is related to the
date of den emergence and time spent at the den post-emergence
(Andersen et al. 2024), with litters having higher survival rates the
later they emerge in the spring, and the longer they spend at the den
site after emergence. To determine whether dens that were disturbed
during the late denning and/or post-emergence period(s) experienced
Level A harassment, we relied on estimates of litter survival until
approximately 100 days post emergence, derived from the analysis of
empirical data on the dates of emergence from the den and departure
from the den site (Anderson et al. 2024). These estimates are dependent
on the date of emergence and time spent at the den site post-emergence.
For each den disturbed during the late denning and/or post-emergence
periods, we obtained a random sample of regression coefficients from
the posterior distribution and calculated the probability of a litter
surviving approximately 100 days post-emergence with the following
equation:
logit(s) = [beta]0 + [beta]1emerge +
[beta]2depart
where s is the probability of at least one cub being alive
approximately 100 days post-emergence, [beta]0 is the
intercept coefficient, [beta]1 is the coefficient
associated with the Julian date of emergence (emerge), and
[beta]2 is the coefficient associated with the number of
days the family group stayed at the den site post-emergence before
departing (depart). These probabilities are based on estimates of
litter survival derived from the analysis of empirical data on the
dates of emergence from the den and departure from the den site
(Anderson et al. 2024).
We developed the code to run this model in program R (R Core
Development Team 2020) and ran 10,000 iterations of the model (i.e.,
Monte Carlo simulation) to derive the estimated number of dens
disturbed and associated levels of harassment. We then determined the
number of cubs that would have lethal take, Level A harassment, and
Level B harassment, and the number of females that would experience
Level B harassment. Table 6 shows the probability of an exposure
resulting in the types of harassment of denning polar bears.
[[Page 2729]]
Table 6--Probability That an Exposure Elicited a Response by Denning Polar Bears That Would Result in Level B
Harassment, Level A Harassment, Lethal Take, or No Take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None (sow Level B Level B Level A Lethal
Denning period or cub(s)) (sow) (cub(s)) (cub(s)) (cub(s))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Den Establishment.............................. 0.750 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000
Early Denning.................................. 0.860 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.130
Late Denning................................... 0.510 0.490 0.000 0.490 0.000
Post Emergence--Previously Undisturbed Den..... 0.000 1.000 0.200 0.800 0.000
Post Emergence--Previously Disturbed Den....... 0.000 1.000 0.474 0.526 0.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Level B harassment was applicable to both adults and cubs, if present; Level A harassment and lethal take
were applicable to cubs only and were not possible during the den establishment period, which ended with the
birth of the cubs. Probabilities were calculated from the analysis of 60 case studies of polar bear responses
to human activity. During the early denning period, there was no Level A harassment for cubs, only lethal
take. We provide two sets of take probabilities for the post-emergence period. The first (Post-emergence--
Undisturbed) is the set of probabilities when a den has not been disturbed during the late denning period. The
second (Post-emergence--Disturbed) is the set of probabilities for a den that was disturbed during the late
denning period (Rode et al. 2018; Andersen et al. 2024).
Model Results
Our analysis estimates a mean of 1.36 (median = 1; 95 percent CI:
0-4) land-based dens in the project area will potentially be exposed to
disturbance from the specified activities during the 1-year period of
the proposed IHA. Our den simulation analysis predicts this degree of
potential exposure will have a zero (0) percent chance of incurring
Level B harassment. Furthermore, our analysis predicts a zero (0)
percent probability of the BLM's specified activities resulting in
either Level A harassment or lethal take during the 1-year period of
the proposed IHA.
Critical Assumptions
To conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount of Level
B harassment, Level A harassment, and lethal take, we made several
critical assumptions.
Level B harassment is equated herein with behavioral responses that
indicate harassment or disturbance, but not to the extent that cause
the animal to experience significant biological consequences. Our
estimates do not account for variable responses by polar bear age and
sex; however, sensitivity of denning polar bears was incorporated into
the analysis. The available information suggests that polar bears are
generally resilient to low levels of disturbance. Females with
dependent young and juvenile polar bears are physiologically the most
sensitive (Andersen and Aars 2008) and most likely to experience
harassment from disturbance. Not enough information on composition of
the SBS polar bear stock in the specified project area is available to
incorporate individual variability based on age and sex or to predict
its influence on harassment estimates. Our estimates are derived from a
variety of sample populations with various age and sex structures, and
we assume the exposed population will have a similar composition, and
that, therefore, the response rates are applicable.
The estimates of behavioral response presented here do not account
for the individual movements of animals in response to the specified
activities. Our assessment assumes animals remain stationary (i.e.,
density does not change). Not enough information is available about the
movement of polar bears in response to specific disturbances to refine
this assumption.
The SBS polar bears create maternal dens on the sea ice as well as
on land. The den simulation used in our analysis does not simulate dens
on the sea ice. However, the specified activities will be conducted
entirely on land and only a small percentage of the activities will
occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the coastline. Therefore, the impact of
the activities will be primarily limited to land-based dens within 1.6
km (1 mi) of the project impact areas used during denning season.
Additionally, this impact area will be surveyed during AIR surveys to
mitigate impacts on denning polar bears.
The specific combination of snow trail segments depicted in figure
1 that will be used for mobilization, resupply, and backhauling is not
currently known. For the purposes of the above analyses and estimates
of take by Level B and Level A harassment, and the risks of lethal
take, we assumed that all routes within the AIR surveyed section
(figure 1) of the project might potentially be used at some point
during the denning season. This assumption results in a very
conservative estimate of take for the 1-year IHA period that accounts
for all possible operational scenarios.
Sum of Harassment From All Sources
Our analyses quantified the total number of Level B harassment,
Level A harassment, and lethal take likely to result from the BLM's
specified activities. We evaluated three potential sources of
harassment/take, including surface interactions, aircraft overflights,
and den disturbance of sows and/or cubs in our analyses. A summary of
total estimated take via Level B harassment during the project by
source is provided in table 7. We do not anticipate take by Level A
harassment or lethal take to occur.
Table 7--Total Estimated Takes by Harassment of Polar Bears, by Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Source and type of harassment estimated
harassments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bears on the surface--summer--Level B harassment..... 1
Bears on the surface--winter--Level B harassment..... 10
Aircraft activities--summer and winter--Level B 1
harassment..........................................
------------------
Total............................................ 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2730]]
Determinations and Findings
In making these draft findings, we considered the best available
scientific information, including: the biological and behavioral
characteristics of polar bears, the most recent information on polar
bear distribution and abundance within the area of the specified
activities, the current and expected future status of the stock
(including existing and foreseeable human and natural stressors), the
potential sources of disturbance caused by the project, and the
potential responses of polar bears to this disturbance. In addition, we
reviewed applicant-provided materials, information in our files and
datasets, and published reference materials, and consulted with species
experts.
Small Numbers
For our small numbers determination, we consider whether the
estimated number of polar bears to be subjected to incidental take is
small relative to the population size of the species or stock.
1. We estimate that BLM's proposed specified activities in the
specified geographic region will cause the take of no more than 12
polar bears by Level B harassment during the 1-year period of this
proposed IHA (table 7). Take of 12 animals is 1.32 percent of the best
available estimate of the current SBS stock size of 907 animals
(Bromaghin et al. 2015; Atwood et al. 2020) ((12/907) x 100 [ap] 1.32
percent) and represents a ``small number'' of polar bears of that
stock.
2. The footprint of the specified activities within the specified
geographic region is extremely small relative to the range of the SBS
stock of polar bears. Polar bears from the SBS stock occur well beyond
the boundaries of the proposed IHA region. As such, the IHA boundaries
represent only a minute subset of the potential area in which the polar
bear may occur. Thus, the FWS concludes that a small portion of the SBS
polar bear populations may be present in the specified geographic
region during the time of the specified activities.
Small Numbers Conclusion
We propose a finding that take of up to 12 SBS polar bears
represents a small number of the SBS stock of polar bears.
Negligible Impact
For our negligible impacts determination, we consider the
following:
1. The distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears
indicate that relatively few polar bears will occur in the specified
areas of activity at any time and, therefore, few polar bears are
likely to be affected.
2. The documented impacts of previous activities, including the
2023-2024 BLM IHA (88 FR 88943), similar to the specified activities on
polar bears, and, taking into consideration the baseline of existing
impacts from factors such as oil and gas activities in the area and
other ongoing or proposed ITAs, suggests that the types of activities
analyzed for this proposed IHA will have minimal effects on polar
bears. Additionally, the effects will be limited to short-term,
temporary behavioral changes, or minor injury. Furthermore, our
analyses do not indicate, nor do we anticipate, any take by Level A
harassment or lethal take of polar bears during the 1-year period of
this proposed IHA. Therefore, we anticipate that the specified
activities will not have lasting impacts that could significantly
affect an individual polar bear's health, reproduction, or survival.
The limited extent of anticipated impacts on polar bears is unlikely to
adversely affect annual rates of polar bear survival or recruitment.
Thus, we do not expect any long-term negative consequences to either
individual- or population-level fitness.
3. The IHA, if finalized, would require implementation of
monitoring requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce the
potential impacts of their operations on polar bears. Den detection
surveys for polar bears and adaptive mitigation and management
responses based on real-time monitoring information (described in this
proposed authorization) will be used to avoid or minimize interactions
with polar bears and, therefore, limit potential disturbance of these
animals.
4. The FWS does not anticipate any lethal take that would remove
individual polar bears from the population or prevent their successful
reproduction. This proposed IHA does not authorize any take by Level A
harassment or injury that will likely result in the death of a polar
bear.
We also consider the conjectural or speculative impacts associated
with these specified activities. The specific congressional direction
described below justifies balancing the probability of such impacts
with their severity: If potential effects of a specified activity are
conjectural or speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be
appropriate. A finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if
the probability of occurrence is low, but the potential effects may be
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts
must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species or
stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this balancing
test, the FWS will thoroughly evaluate the risks involved and the
potential impacts on marine mammal populations. Such determination will
be made based on the best available scientific information (54 FR
40338, September 29, 1989, quoting 53 FR 8473, March 15, 1988, and 132
Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 1986)).
The potential effects of most concern here are the mortality of
cubs that could result from disturbances during certain periods of the
denning season. The FWS estimated that the probability of greater than
or equal to one lethal take that is likely to result in the mortality
of a denning polar bear is zero within the 1-year period of this
proposed IHA. Therefore, the FWS does not anticipate any lethal take
will occur during the IHA period. If a den is disturbed and lethal take
were to occur, this take would be limited to only cubs during the
denning period. Denning females, the demographic group most important
to annual recruitment, are limited to take by Level B harassment.
Therefore, the number of potentially available reproductive females
that would contribute to recruitment for the SBS stock would remain
unaffected if a den disturbance were to result in the mortality of the
cubs.
The SBS stock of polar bears is currently estimated as 907 polar
bears (Bromaghin et al. 2015, 2021; Atwood 2020). The loss of one
litter ranges from 0 percent (0 cubs) to approximately 0.33 percent (3
cubs) of the annual SBS stock size of polar bears (((0 cubs to 3 cubs)
/ 907) x 100[ap]0 to 0.33). Cub litter survival was estimated at 50
percent (90 percent CI: 33-67 percent) for the SBS stock during 2001-
2006 (Regehr et al. 2010). A female may lose her litter for several
reasons separate from den disturbance. The determining factor for polar
bear stock growth is adult female survival (Eberhardt 1990).
Consequently, the loss of female cubs has a greater impact on annual
recruitment rates for the SBS stock of polar bears compared to male
cubs. If a den disturbance were to result in the mortality of the
entire litter, the female would be available to breed during the next
mating season and could produce another litter during the next denning
season.
Based on our projected zero cub mortality associated with these
specified activities, and the recognition that even if a den is
disturbed, the number of potentially affected cubs would be minimal and
the number of reproductive females in the stock would remain the same,
the FWS does not
[[Page 2731]]
anticipate that the conjectural or speculative impacts associated with
these specified activities warrant a finding of non-negligible impact
or otherwise preclude issuance of this proposed IHA. We reviewed the
effects of the specified well-plugging and reclamation activities on
polar bears, including impacts from surface interactions, aircraft
overflights, and den disturbance. Based on our review of these
potential impacts, past monitoring reports, and the biology and natural
history of polar bears, we anticipate that such effects will be limited
to short-term behavioral disturbances.
We have evaluated climate change regarding polar bears as part of
the environmental baseline. Climate change is a global phenomenon and
was considered as the overall driver of effects that could alter polar
bear habitat and behavior. The FWS is currently involved in research to
understand how climate change may affect polar bears. As we gain a
better understanding of climate change effects, we will incorporate the
information in future authorizations.
We find that the impacts of these specified activities cannot be
reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect SBS polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment
or survival. We therefore find that the total of the taking estimated
above and proposed for authorization will have a negligible impact on
SBS polar bears. We do not propose to authorize lethal take or any take
by Level A harassment that we believe could result in long-term
individual or population level fitness consequences.
Impact on Subsistence Use
Based on past community consultations, locations of hunting areas,
no anticipated overlap of hunting areas and project activities, and the
best scientific information available, including monitoring data from
similar activities, we propose a finding that take caused by the oil
well plugging and reclamation; soil sampling; snow trail, pad, and
airstrip construction; and summer cleanup activities in the project
area will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
polar bears for taking for subsistence uses during the proposed
timeframe.
While polar bears represent a small portion, in terms of the number
of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the Utqiagvik,
Nuiqsut, Wainwright and Atqasuk communities, their harvest is important
to Alaska Natives. The BLM will be required to notify the cities of
Wainwright and Utqiagvik and the Native villages of Atqasuk and Nuiqsut
of the planned activities and document any discussions of potential
conflict. The BLM must make reasonable efforts to ensure that
activities do not interfere with subsistence hunting and that adverse
effects on the availability of polar bears are minimized. Should such a
concern be voiced, development of plans of cooperation (POC), which
must identify measures to minimize any adverse effects, will be
required. The POC will ensure that project activities will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock
for subsistence uses. This POC must provide the procedures addressing
how the BLM will work with the affected Alaska Native communities and
what actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence
hunting of polar bears, as warranted.
The FWS has not received any reports and is not aware of
information that indicates that polar bears are being or will be
deterred from hunting areas or impacted in any way that diminishes
their availability for subsistence use by oil well plugging and
reclamation; soil sampling; snow trail, pad, and airstrip construction;
and summer cleanup. If there is evidence that these activities are
affecting the availability of polar bears for take for subsistence
uses, we will reevaluate our findings regarding permissible limits of
take and the measures required to ensure continued subsistence hunting
opportunities.
Least Practicable Adverse Impact
We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of mitigation
measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the specified
activities, the best available scientific information, and monitoring
data during the BLM's activities in the specified geographic region. We
propose a finding that the mitigation measures included within the
BLM's Request will ensure least practicable adverse impacts on polar
bears (BLM 2024).
Polar bear den surveys at the beginning of the winter season, the
resulting 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone around any known
polar bear dens, and restrictions on the timing and types of activities
in the vicinity of dens will ensure that impacts to denning female
polar bears and their cubs are minimized during this critical period.
Minimum flight elevations over polar bear areas and flight restrictions
around observed polar bears and known polar bear dens will reduce the
potential for aircraft disturbing polar bears. Finally, the BLM will
implement mitigation measures to prevent the presence and impact of
attractants in camps such as the use of wildlife-resistant waste
receptacles, daily food waste incineration, and storing hazardous
materials in drums or other secure containers. These measures are
outlined in a polar bear interaction plan that was developed in
coordination with the FWS and is part of the BLM's application for this
IHA. Based on the information we currently have regarding den and
aircraft disturbance and polar bear attractants, we concluded that the
mitigation measures outlined in the BLM's Request (BLM 2024) and
incorporated into this authorization will minimize impacts from the
specified oil well plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail,
pad, and airstrip construction, and summer cleanup activities to the
extent practicable.
Several mitigation measures were considered but determined to be
not practicable. These measures are listed below:
Grounding all flights if they must fly below 457 m (1,500
ft)--Requiring all aircraft to maintain an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft)
at all times is not practicable as some operations may require flying
below 457 m (1,500 ft) to perform necessary inspections or maintain
safety of flight crew. Aircraft are required to fly above 457 m (1,500
ft) at all times within 805 m (0.5 mi) of an observed polar bear unless
there is an emergency;
One-mile buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat--One-mile (1.6-km) buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat is not practicable as much of the BLM's proposed project area
occurs within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat; thus, to exclude all
areas within 1.6 km of denning habitat would preclude the planned
activities from occurring;
Prohibition of driving over high relief areas,
embankments, or stream and river crossings--While the denning habitat,
such as high relief areas, embankments, and streams or river banks,
must be considered during tundra travel, complete prohibition is not
practicable. High relief areas, embankments, streams, and rivers occur
throughout the project area. To completely avoid these types of areas
would likely cause personnel to drive further away from established
operational areas and unnecessarily create additional safety concerns.
Furthermore, other mitigation measures to minimize impact to denning
habitats are included and will minimize the risk imposed by driving
over high relief areas, embankments, or stream and river crossings;
Use of a broader definition of ``denning habitat'' for
operational offsets--There is no available data to
[[Page 2732]]
support broadening the defining features of denning habitat beyond that
established by the USGS. Such a redefinition would cause an increase in
the area surveyed for maternal dens, and the associated increase in
potential harassment of polar bears on the surface would outweigh the
mitigative benefits;
Establishment of corridors for sow and cub transit to the
sea ice--As there is no data to support the existence of natural
transit corridors to the sea ice, establishment of corridors in the IHA
area would be highly speculative. Therefore, there would be no
mitigative benefit realized by their establishment;
Require all activities to cease if a polar bear is injured
or killed until an investigation is completed--The FWS has incorporated
reporting requirements into this proposed authorization for all polar
bear interactions. While it may aid in any subsequent investigation,
ceasing all activities may not be practicable or safe and, thus, will
not be mandated;
Require use of den detection dogs--It is not practicable
or safe to require scent-trained dogs to detect dens due to the large
spatial extent that would need to be surveyed within activity areas;
Require the use of handheld or vehicle-mounted Forward
Looking Infrared (FLIR)--The efficacy rates for AIR have been found to
be four times more likely to detect dens versus ground-based FLIR
(handheld or vehicle-mounted FLIR) due to impacts of blowing snow on
detection. The BLM has incorporated into their mitigation measures the
use of handheld or vehicle-mounted FLIR when transiting rivers
occurring in suitable denning habitat, but it is not practicable to use
the equipment during all transit;
Construct safety gates, fences, and enclosures to prevent
polar bears from accessing facilities--This project will require no
permanent facility/structures and encompasses a large area.
Construction and deconstruction of barriers for a moving camp would
increase potential human--polar bear interactions and impacts to polar
bear habitat;
Employ protected species observers (PSOs) for monitoring,
recording, reporting, and implementing mitigation measures--All
personnel will be trained in wildlife observation, employment of PSOs
would not be anticipated to reduce impacts to polar bears. Monitoring,
recording, reporting are described in the IHA application;
Avoid areas of high-density polar bear use (e.g., barrier
islands and coastline) including the establishment of camps and pads--
This measure is not practicable because the legacy wells that this
project is focused on are all located along the coastline, and snow
trail must also cross through these areas to reach the well sites;
Avoid predominantly coastal routes for flight pathways--
This measure is not practicable because the remediation sites are
located along the coast, and aviation access routes to project sites
must occur over the coast; and
Restrict activity and travel over polar bear denning
habitat to eliminate or lessen risk of den collapse--This project has
activities that will travel over potential polar bear denning habitat.
The BLM has committed to multiple effective mitigation measures to
minimize their potential impacts to polar bear denning habitat and
reduce to chance of den collapse. Therefore, we believe that the
probability of this project's activities causing a den collapse is near
zero and additional mitigation measures would not further reduce the
probability.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance
with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily concluded
that authorizing the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of 12
SBS polar bears by Level B harassment during the proposed harassment
authorization period would not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment and, thus, preparation of an environmental impact
statement for this incidental harassment authorization is not required
by section 102(2) of NEPA or its implementing regulations. We are
accepting comments on the draft environmental assessment as specified
above in DATES and ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all
Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or
endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Prior to issuance of a final IHA, the FWS will
complete intra-Service consultation under section 7 of the ESA on our
proposed issuance of an IHA. These evaluations and findings will be
made available on the FWS's website at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/biological-opinion.
Government-to-Government Consultation
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a
Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We seek their
full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing
conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain
sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information available
to Alaska Tribal organizations and communities. Our efforts are guided
by the following policies and directives:
(1) The Native American Policy of the FWS (January 20, 2016);
(2) The Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft form;
see 87 FR 66255, November 3, 2022);
(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000);
(4) Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5,
1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), 3342 (October
21, 2016), and 3403 (November 15, 2021) as well as Director's Order 227
(September 8, 2022);
(5) The Alaska Government-to-Government Policy (a departmental
memorandum issued January 18, 2001); and
(6) the Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with
Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed IHA on federally
recognized Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act) Corporations. The FWS has determined that authorizing
the Level B harassment of up to 12 polar bears from the BLM's specified
activities would not have any Tribal implications or ANCSA Corporation
implications and, therefore, Government-to-Government consultation or
Government-to-ANCSA Corporation consultation is not necessary. However,
we invite continued discussion, either about the project and its
impacts or about our coordination and information exchange throughout
the IHA/POC public comment process.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed IHA does not contain any new collection of
information that requires approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). The OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements associated with IHAs and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-
0194 (expires 08/31/
[[Page 2733]]
2026). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
Proposed Authorization
We propose to authorize, for 1 year from date of issuance, the
nonlethal, incidental take by Level B harassment of up to 12 polar
bears from the SBS stock of polar bears for activities associated with
the BLM's oil well plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail,
pad, and airstrip construction, and summer cleanup activities in the
North Slope Borough of Alaska between Wainwright and Oliktok.
Authorized take will be limited to Level B harassment only, i.e.,
disruption of behavioral patterns, and not anticipated to incur any
significant impacts to either individual- or population-level fitness.
We do not anticipate or authorize any take by Level A harassment,
lethal take, or any other injury.
A. General Conditions for the IHA for the BLM
1. Activities must be conducted in the manner described in the
revised Request dated August 2024 (received August 26, 2024) for an IHA
and in accordance with all applicable conditions and mitigation
measures. The taking of polar bears whenever the required conditions,
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are not fully
implemented as required by the IHA is prohibited. Failure to follow the
measures specified both in the revised Request and within this proposed
authorization may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation
of the IHA.
2. If project activities cause unauthorized take (i.e., take of
more than 12 polar bears from the SBS stock by Level B harassment or a
form of take other than Level B harassment, or take of 1 or more polar
bears through methods not described in the IHA), then BLM must take the
following actions:
i. Cease its activities immediately (or reduce activities to the
minimum level necessary to maintain safety);
ii. Report the details of the incident to the FWS within 48 hours;
and
iii. Suspend further activities until the FWS has reviewed the
circumstances and determined whether additional mitigation measures are
necessary to avoid further unauthorized taking.
3. All operations managers, aircraft pilots, and vehicle operators
must receive a copy of this IHA and maintain access to it for reference
at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be
fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the
IHA at all times during project work.
4. This IHA will apply to activities associated with the proposed
project as described in this document and in the BLM's revised Request.
Changes to the proposed project without prior authorization may
invalidate the IHA.
5. The BLM's revised Request is approved and fully incorporated
into this IHA unless exceptions are specifically noted herein. The
revised Request includes:
i. The BLM's original Request for an IHA, dated June 2024,
(received by the FWS June 17, 2024) which includes the BLM's Polar Bear
Safety, Awareness, and Interaction Plan and geospatial files; and
ii. The BLM's revised Request for an IHA, dated August 2024
(received by the FWS August 26, 2024).
6. Operators will allow the FWS personnel or the FWS's designated
representative to visit project work sites to monitor for impacts to
polar bears and subsistence uses of polar bears at any time throughout
project activities so long as it is safe to do so. ``Operators'' are
all personnel operating under the BLM's authority, including all
contractors and subcontractors.
The BLM must implement the following policies and procedures to
avoid interactions and minimize to the greatest extent practicable any
adverse impacts on polar bears, their habitat, and the availability of
these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
B. General Avoidance Measures
1. The BLM must cooperate with the FWS and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor and mitigate the impacts
of activities on polar bears.
2. Trained and qualified personnel must be designated to monitor
for the presence of polar bears, initiate mitigation measures, and
monitor, record, and report the effects of the activities on polar
bears. The BLM must provide all operators with polar bear awareness
training prior to their participation in project activities.
3. An FWS-approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction
plan must be on file with the FWS Marine Mammal Management office and
available onsite. The interaction plan must include:
i. A description of the proposed activity (i.e., a summary of the
plan of operations during the proposed activity);
ii. A food, waste, and other attractants management plan;
iii. Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
iv. Site-specific polar bear interaction risk evaluation and
mitigation measures;
v. Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
vi. Polar bear observation and reporting procedures.
4. The BLM must contact potentially affected subsistence
communities and hunter organizations to discuss potential conflicts
caused by the activities and provide the FWS documentation of
communications as described in D. Measures To Reduce Impacts to
Subsistence Users.
5. Mitigation measures for aircraft. The BLM must undertake the
following activities to limit disturbance from aircraft activities:
i. Operators of support aircraft shall, at all times, conduct their
activities at the maximum distance practicable from concentrations of
polar bears.
ii. Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter operations within the IHA
area must maintain a minimum altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) above ground
level when safe and operationally possible.
iii. Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, will aircraft
operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within 805 m (0.5
mi) of a polar bear observed on ice or land measured in a straight line
between the polar bear and the ground directly underneath the aircraft.
Helicopters may not hover or circle above such areas or within 805 m
(0.5 mi) of such areas. If weather conditions or operational
constraints necessitate operation of aircraft at altitudes below 457 m
(1,500 ft), the operator must avoid areas of known polar bear
concentrations and should take precautions to avoid flying directly
over or within 805 m (0.5 mi) of these areas.
iv. Aircraft may not be operated in such a way as to separate
individual polar bears from a group (i.e., two or more polar bears).
6. Mitigation measures for winter activities. The BLM must
undertake the following activities to limit disturbance around known
polar bear dens:
i. The BLM must conduct two aerial infrared (AIR) surveys of all
denning habitat located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of specified activities in
an attempt to identify maternal polar bear dens. The first survey
obtained must occur between December 1 and December 25, 2024, and the
second survey obtained must occur between December 15, 2024, and
January 10, 2025, with at least 24 hours occurring between the
completion of the first survey and the beginning of the second survey.
ii. All observed or suspected polar bear dens must be reported to
the FWS prior to the initiation of activities.
[[Page 2734]]
iii. If a suspected den site is located, the BLM will immediately
consult with the FWS to analyze the data and determine if additional
surveys or mitigation measures are required. The FWS will determine
whether the suspected den is to be treated as a putative den for the
purposes of this IHA.
iv. Operators must observe a 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion
zone around all putative polar bear dens during the denning season
(November-April, or until the female and cubs leave the areas). Should
a suspected den be discovered within 1 mile of activities, work must
cease, and the FWS must be contacted for guidance. The FWS 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 BLM
must comply with any additional measures specified.
v. In determining the denning habitat that requires surveys, the
den habitat map developed by the USGS should be used. A map of
potential coastal polar bear denning habitat can be found at: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/asc/science/polar-bear-maternal-denning?qt-science_center_objects=4#qt-science_center_objects.
C. Monitoring
1. Operators must provide onsite observers and implement the FWS-
approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction plan to apply
mitigation measures, monitor the project's effects on polar bears and
subsistence uses, and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
2. Onsite observers must be present during all operations and must
record all polar bear observations, identify and document potential
harassment, and work with personnel to implement appropriate mitigation
measures.
3. Operators shall cooperate with the FWS and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of project
activities on polar bears. Where information is insufficient to
evaluate the potential effects of activities on polar bears and the
subsistence use of this species, the BLM may be required to participate
in joint monitoring efforts to address these information needs and
ensure the least practicable impact to this resource.
D. Measures To Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users
The BLM must conduct its activities in a manner that, to the
greatest extent practicable, minimizes adverse impacts on the
availability of polar bears for subsistence uses.
1. The BLM will be required to develop a FWS-approved POC if,
through community consultation, concerns are raised regarding impacts
to subsistence harvest or Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
2. If an FWS-approved POC is required, the BLM will implement that
POC
3. Prior to conducting the work, the BLM will take the following
steps to reduce potential effects on subsistence harvest of polar
bears:
i. Avoid work in areas of known polar bear subsistence harvest;
ii. Notify the cities Wainwright and Utqiagvik and the Native
Villages of Atqasuk and Nuiqsit of the proposed project activities;
iii. Work to resolve any concerns of potentially affected Alaska
Native Tribal organizations and corporations regarding the project's
effects on subsistence hunting of polar bears;
iv. If any unresolved or ongoing concerns of potentially affected
Alaska Native Tribal organizations and corporations remain, modify the
POC in consultation with the FWS and subsistence stakeholders to
address these concerns; and
v. Implement FWS-required mitigation measures that will reduce
impacts to subsistence users and their resources.
E. Reporting Requirements
The BLM must report the results of monitoring to the FWS Marine
Mammals Management office via email at: [email protected].
1. In-season monitoring reports.
2. Activity progress reports. The BLM must:
(i) Notify the FWS at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
(ii) Provide the FWS weekly progress reports of any significant
changes in activities and/or locations; and
(iii) Notify the FWS within 48 hours after ending of activities.
3. Polar bear observation reports. The BLM must report, within 48
hours, all observations of polar bears and potential polar bear dens
during any project activities. Upon request, monitoring report data
must be provided in a common electronic format (to be specified by the
FWS). Information in the observation report must include, but need not
be limited to:
i. Date and time of each observation;
ii. Locations of the observer and polar bears (GPS coordinates if
possible);
iii. Number of polar bears;
iv. Sex and age class--adult, subadult, cub (if known);
v. Observer name and contact information;
vi. Weather, visibility, and if at sea, sea state, and sea-ice
conditions at the time of observation;
vii. Estimated closest distance of polar bears from personnel and
facilities;
viii. Type of work being conducted at time of sighting;
ix. Possible attractants present;
x. Polar bear behavior--initial behavior when first observed (e.g.,
walking, swimming, resting, etc.);
xi. Potential reaction--behavior of polar bear potentially in
response to presence or activity of personnel and equipment;
xii. Description of the encounter;
xiii. Duration of the encounter; and
xiv. Mitigation actions taken.
4. Human-polar bear interaction reports. The BLM must report all
human-polar bear interaction incidents immediately, and not later than
48 hours after the incident. Human-polar bear interactions include:
i. Any situation in which there is a possibility for unauthorized
take. For instance, when project activities exceed those included in an
IHA, when a mitigation measure was required but not enacted, or when
the injury or death of a polar bear occurs. Reports must include all
information specified for an observation report in paragraphs (3)(i)-
(xiv) of this section E, a complete detailed description of the
incident, and any other actions taken.
ii. Injured, dead, or distressed polar bears that are clearly not
associated with project activities (e.g., animals found outside the
project area, previously wounded animals, or carcasses with moderate to
advanced decomposition or scavenger damage) must also be reported to
the FWS immediately, and not later than 48 hours after discovery.
Photographs, video, location information, or any other available
documentation must be included.
6. Final report. The results of monitoring and mitigation efforts
identified in the marine mammal avoidance and interaction plan must be
submitted to the FWS for review within 90 days of the expiration of
this IHA. Upon request, final report data must be provided in a common
electronic format (to be specified by the FWS). Information in the
final report must include, but need not be limited to:
i. Copies of all observation reports submitted under the IHA;
ii. A summary of the observation reports;
iii. A summary of monitoring and mitigation efforts including
areas, total hours, total distances, and distribution;
[[Page 2735]]
iv. Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability
of polar bears during monitoring;
v. Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
vi. A summary and analysis of the distribution, abundance, and
behavior of all polar bears observed; and
vii. Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
Request for Public Comments
If you wish to comment on this proposed authorization, the
associated draft environmental assessment, or both documents, you may
submit your comments by either of the methods described in ADDRESSES.
Please identify whether you are commenting on the proposed
authorization, draft environmental assessment, or both, make your
comments as specific as possible, confine them to issues pertinent to
the proposed authorization, and explain the reason for any changes you
recommend. Where possible, your comments should reference the specific
section or paragraph that you are addressing. The FWS will consider all
comments that are received before the close of the comment period (see
DATES). The FWS does not anticipate extending the public comment period
beyond the 30 days required under section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the
MMPA.
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
become part of the administrative record for this proposal. Before
including your address, telephone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your
entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comments to withhold from public review your personal identifying
information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Peter Fasbender,
Assistant Regional Director--Fisheries and Ecological Services, Alaska
Region.
[FR Doc. 2025-00450 Filed 1-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P