[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35363-35427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13725]
[[Page 35363]]
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 113
June 12, 2013
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 18
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 35364]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043; FF07CAMM00-FXFR133707PB000]
RIN 1018-AY67
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA), and its implementing regulations, we, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service or we), are finalizing regulations that
authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of small
numbers of Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and polar
bears (Ursus maritimus) during oil and gas Industry (Industry)
exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent western coast of
Alaska. This rule is effective for 5 years from the date of issuance.
The total expected takings of Pacific walruses (walruses) and polar
bears during Industry exploration activities will impact small numbers
of animals, will have a negligible impact on these species, and will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these
species for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. These final regulations
include: Permissible methods of nonlethal taking; measures to ensure
that Industry activities will have the least practicable adverse impact
on the species and their habitat, and on the availability of these
species for subsistence uses; and requirements for monitoring and
reporting of any incidental takings that may occur, to the Service. The
Service will issue Letters of Authorization (LOAs), upon request, for
activities proposed to be conducted in accordance with the regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective June 12, 2013, and remains effective
through June 12, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The final rule and associated environmental assessment (EA)
are available for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043.
Comments and materials received in response to this action are
available for public inspection during normal working hours of 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Marine Mammals Management
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage,
AK 99503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Perham, Marine Mammals
Management Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, 1011 East
Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone: 907-786-3800 or 1-800-362-
5148. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-
8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why We Need To Publish a Final Rule
Incidental take regulations (ITRs), under section 101(a)(5)(A) of
the MMPA, allow for incidental, but not intentional, take of small
numbers of marine mammals that may occur during the conduct of
otherwise lawful activities within a specific geographical region. If
the public requests that the ITRs be issued, the Service must first
determine that the total of such taking during each 5-year (or less)
period concerned will have a negligible impact on marine mammals and
will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. The
Service has considered a request from Industry to issue ITRs in the
Chukchi Sea for a 5-year period to allow for the nonlethal, incidental
taking of polar bears or walruses during their exploration activities.
The Service is issuing these ITRs based on our determination that
potential impacts to polar bears and Pacific walruses will be
negligible and the potential impacts to subsistence use of polar bears
and Pacific walruses are mitigable.
What is the effect of this final rule?
These ITRs provide a mechanism for the Service to work with
Industry to minimize the effects of Industry activity on marine mammals
through appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures, which also
provide important information on marine mammal distribution, behavior,
movements, and interactions with Industry. Additionally, these
regulations provide a mechanism whereby persons conducting oil and gas
exploration activities in the specified area in accordance with the
terms of an LOA issued pursuant to these regulations will not be
subject to criminal or civil prosecution under the MMPA.
The Basis for Our Action
Based upon our review of the nature, scope, and timing of the oil
and gas exploration activities and mitigation measures, and in
consideration of the best available scientific information, it is our
determination that the activities will have a negligible impact on
walruses and on polar bears and will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence
uses by Alaska Natives.
Effective Date
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find that we have good
cause to make this rule effective less than 30 days after publication
(see DATES). Making this rule effective immediately upon publication
will ensure that Industry implements mitigation measures and monitoring
programs in the geographic region that reduce the risk of lethal and
nonlethal effects to polar bears and Pacific walruses by Industry
activities.
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary),
through the Director of the Service, the authority to allow the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals, in response to requests by U.S. citizens [as defined in 50 CFR
18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) in a specified geographic region. According to the MMPA, the
Service shall allow this incidental taking if (1) we make a finding
that the total of such taking for the 5-year timeframe of the
regulations will have no more than a negligible impact on these species
and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
these species for taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives, and (2)
we issue regulations that set forth (i) permissible methods of taking,
(ii) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species and their habitat and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses, and (iii) requirements for monitoring and reporting.
If we issue regulations allowing such incidental taking, we can issue
LOAs to conduct activities under the provisions of these regulations
when requested by citizens of the United States.
The term ``take,'' as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any
marine mammal. Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, for activities other
than military readiness activities or scientific research conducted by
or on behalf of the Federal Government, means ``any act of pursuit,
[[Page 35365]]
torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild'' [the MMPA calls this Level
A harassment] ``or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' [the MMPA calls this Level B
harassment] (16 U.S.C. 1362).
The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact''
are defined at 50 CFR 18.27 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 the regulations, but we do not rely on that definition here
as it conflates the ``small numbers'' and ``negligible impact''
requirements, which we recognize as two separate and distinct
requirements for promulgating ITRs under the MMPA. Instead, in our
small numbers determination, we evaluate whether the number of marine
mammals likely to be taken is small relative to the size of the overall
population.
Industry conducts activities, such as oil and gas exploration, in
marine mammal habitat that could result in the incidental taking of
marine mammals. Although Industry is under no legal requirement under
the MMPA to obtain incidental take authorization, since 1991, Industry
has requested, and we have issued regulations for, incidental take
authorization for conducting activities in areas of walrus and polar
bear habitat. We issued ITRs for walruses and polar bears in the
Chukchi Sea for the period from 1991 to 1996 (56 FR 27443; June 14,
1991) and 2008 to 2013 (73 FR 33212; June 11, 2008). These regulations
are at 50 CFR part 18, subpart I (Sec. Sec. 18.111 to 18.119). In the
Beaufort Sea, ITRs have been issued from 1993 to present: November 16,
1993 (58 FR 60402); August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42805); January 28, 1999 (64
FR 4328); February 3, 2000 (65 FR 5275); March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16828);
November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66744); August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926), and
August 3, 2011 (76 FR 47010). These regulations are at 50 CFR part 18,
subpart J (Sec. Sec. 18.121 to 18.129).
Summary of Current Request
On January 31, 2012, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), on
behalf of its members, and ConocoPhillips, Alaska, Inc. (CPAI), a
participating party, requested that the Service promulgate regulations
to allow the nonlethal, incidental take of small numbers of walruses
and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea and the adjacent western coast of
Alaska. AOGA requested that the regulations be applicable to all
persons conducting activities associated with oil and gas exploration
as described in its petition for a period of 5 years. AOGA is a
private, nonprofit trade association representing companies active in
the Alaska oil and gas Industry. AOGA's members include: Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company, Apache Corporation, BP Exploration (Alaska)
Inc., Chevron, Eni Petroleum, ExxonMobil Production Company, Flint
Hills Resources, Inc., Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, Marathon Oil Company, Petro
Star Inc., Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Inc., Repsol, Shell Gulf
of Mexico, Inc., Statoil, Tesoro Alaska Company, and XTO Energy, Inc.
The 2012 request was for regulations to allow the incidental,
nonlethal take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears in
association with oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent
coastline for the period from June 11, 2013, to June 11, 2018. The
information provided by the petitioners indicates that projected oil
and gas activities over this timeframe will be limited to exploration
activities. Within that time, oil and gas exploration activities could
occur during any month of the year, depending on the type of activity.
Offshore activities, such as exploration drilling, seismic surveys, and
shallow hazards surveys, are expected to occur only during the open-
water season (July-November). Onshore activities may occur during
winter (e.g., geotechnical studies), spring (e.g., hydrological
studies), or summer-fall (e.g., various fish and wildlife surveys). The
petitioners have also specifically requested that these regulations be
issued for nonlethal take. The petitioners have indicated that, through
the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, they are
confident that no lethal take will occur.
Prior to issuing these regulations in response to this request, we
evaluated the level of industrial activities, their associated
potential impacts to walruses and polar bears, and their effects on the
availability of these species for subsistence use. All projected
exploration activities described by CPAI and AOGA (on behalf of its
members) in their petition, as well as projections of reasonably likely
activities for the period 2013 to 2018, were considered in our
analysis. The activities and geographic region specified in the
request, and considered in these regulations, are described in the
ensuing sections titled ``Description of Geographic Region'' and
``Description of Activities.''
Description of Final Regulations
The regulations include: Permissible methods of nonlethal taking;
measures to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the species
and the availability of these species for subsistence uses; and
requirements for monitoring and reporting. These regulations do not
authorize, or ``permit,'' the actual activities associated with oil and
gas exploration, e.g., seismic testing, drilling, or sea floor mapping.
Rather, they authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of
small numbers of polar bears and walruses associated with those
activities based on standards set forth in the MMPA. The Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are responsible for permitting
activities associated with oil and gas activities in Federal waters and
on Federal lands. The State of Alaska is responsible for permitting
activities on State lands and in State waters.
Under these final regulations, persons may seek taking
authorization for particular projects by applying to the Service for an
LOA for the incidental, nonlethal take associated with exploration
activities pursuant to the regulations. Each group or individual
conducting an Industry-related activity within the area covered by
these regulations will be able to request an LOA. Applicants for LOAs
will have to submit an Operations Plan for the activity, a marine
mammal (Pacific walrus and polar bear) interaction plan, and a site-
specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor any
effects of authorized activities on walruses and polar bears.
[[Page 35366]]
An after-action report on exploration activities and marine mammal
monitoring activities will have to be submitted to the Service within
90 days after completion of the activity. Details of monitoring and
reporting requirements are further described in ``Potential Effects of
Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.''
Applicants will also have to include a Plan of Cooperation (POC)
describing the availability of these species for subsistence use by
Alaska Native communities and how that availability may be affected by
Industry operations. The purpose of the POC is to ensure that oil and
gas activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or the stock for subsistence uses. The POC
must provide the procedures on how Industry will work with the affected
Alaska Native communities, including a description of the necessary
actions that will be taken to: (1) Avoid or minimize interference with
subsistence hunting of polar bears and walruses; and (2) ensure
continued availability of the species for subsistence use. The POC is
further described in ``Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry
Activities on Subsistence Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.''
Under these final regulations, we will evaluate each request for an
LOA based on the specific activity and specific location, and may
condition the LOA depending on specific circumstances for that activity
and location. More information on applying for and receiving an LOA can
be found at 50 CFR 18.27(f).
Description of Geographic Region
These regulations allow Industry operators to incidentally take
small numbers of walruses and polar bears within the area, hereafter
referred to as the Chukchi Sea region (Figure 1; see Final Regulation
Promulgation section). The geographic area covered by AOGA's request is
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Arctic Ocean adjacent to
western Alaska. This area includes the waters (State of Alaska and OCS
waters) and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, which encompasses all waters
north and west of Point Hope (68[deg]20'20'' N, -166[deg]50'40 W, BGN
1947) to the U.S.-Russia Convention Line of 1867, west of a north-south
line through Point Barrow (71[deg]23'29'' N, -156[deg]28'30 W, BGN
1944), and up to 200 miles north of Point Barrow. The Chukchi Sea
region includes that area defined as the BOEM/BSEE OCS oil and gas
Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. The Chukchi Sea region
also includes the terrestrial coastal land 25 miles inland between the
western boundary of the south National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A)
near Icy Cape (70[deg]20'00'', -148[deg]12'00) and the north-south line
from Point Barrow. The Chukchi Sea region encompasses an area of
approximately 240,000 square kilometers (km) (approximately 92,644
square miles). The terrestrial portion of the Chukchi Sea region
encompasses approximately 10,000 km\2\ (3,861 mi\2\) of the Northwest
and South Planning Areas of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-
A). The north-south line at Point Barrow is the western border of the
geographic region in the Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations
(August 3, 2011; 76 FR 47010).
Description of Activities
These final regulations cover exploratory drilling, seismic
surveys, geotechnical surveys, and shallow hazards surveys to be
conducted in the Chukchi Sea from June 11, 2013, to June 11, 2018. This
time period includes the entire open-water seasons of 2013 through
2017, when activities such as exploration drilling, seismic surveys,
geotechnical surveys, and shallow hazards surveys are likely to occur,
but terminates before the start of the 2018 open-water season.
This section reviews the types and scale of oil and gas activities
projected to occur in the Chukchi Sea region over the specified time
period (2013 to 2018). Activities covered in these regulations include
Industry exploration operations of oil and gas reserves, as well as
environmental monitoring associated with those activities, on the
western coast of Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf of the Chukchi
Sea. This information is based upon activity descriptions provided by
the petitioners (sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the AOGA Petition for
Incidental Take Regulations for Oil and Gas Activities in the Chukchi
Sea and Adjacent Lands in 2013 to 2018, January 31, 2012). These
regulations are also based on additional activities in the Chukchi Sea
region that the Service identified and deemed similar to the type
requested in the petition. In including additional information, the
Service has used its discretion, in conducting its analysis, to assess
the potential impacts that more frequent activities may have on polar
bears or Pacific walruses. For example, we chose to analyze the
potential impacts of two annual seismic operations on polar bears and
Pacific walruses, rather than the requested one seismic operation, to
allow incidental take coverage in the event that more seismic survey
activities actually occur annually than what the petitioners requested.
If LOAs are requested for activities that exceed the scope of
activities analyzed under these final regulations, the LOAs will not be
issued, and the Service will consider the potential use of other
management tools to reduce take under different provisions of the MMPA
or reevaluate its findings before further LOAs are issued.
As discussed above, these ITRs apply from June 12, 2013, and remain
effective through June 12, 2018. Within that time, oil and gas
exploration activities could occur during any month of the year,
depending on the type of activity. Offshore activities, such as
exploration drilling, seismic surveys, and shallow hazards surveys, are
expected to occur only during the open-water season (July-November).
Onshore activities may occur during winter (e.g., geotechnical
studies), spring (e.g., hydrological studies), or summer-fall (e.g.,
various fish and wildlife surveys).
Specific locations, within the designated geographic region, where
oil and gas exploration will occur will be determined based upon a
variety of factors, including the outcome of future Federal and State
oil and gas lease sales and information gathered through subsequent
rounds of exploration discovery. The information provided by the
petitioners indicates that offshore exploration activities will be
carried out during the open-water season to avoid seasonal pack ice.
Further onshore activities will be limited and are not expected to
occur in the vicinity of known polar bear denning areas or coastal
walrus haulouts.
These ITRs do not authorize the execution, placement, or location
of Industry activities; they only authorize incidental, nonlethal take
of walruses and polar bears that may result during the course of
Industry activities. Authorizing the activity at particular locations
is part of the permitting process that is authorized by the lead
permitting agency, such as BOEM/BSEE, the COE, or BLM. The specific
dates and durations of the individual operations and their geographic
locations are provided to the Service in detail when requests for LOAs
are submitted.
Oil and gas activities anticipated and considered in our analysis
of these final ITRs include: (1) Offshore exploration drilling; (2)
offshore 3D and 2D seismic surveys; (3) shallow hazards surveys; (4)
other geophysical surveys, such as ice gouge, strudel scour, and
bathymetry surveys; (5) geotechnical surveys; (6) onshore and offshore
environmental studies; and (7) associated support
[[Page 35367]]
activities for the aforementioned activities. Of these, offshore
drilling and seismic surveys are expected to have the greatest
potential effects on Pacific walruses, polar bears, and Alaska Native
subsistence activities. A summary description of the anticipated
activities follows, while detailed descriptions provided by the
petitioners are available on the Service's Marine Mammals Management
Web page at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm.
Offshore Exploration Drilling
Offshore exploration drilling will be conducted from either a
floating drilling unit, such as a drillship or conical drilling unit,
or a jack-up drilling platform. The operating season for exploration
drilling with these types of drilling units is expected to be limited
to the open-water season, from July 1 through November 30, when the
presence of ice is at a minimum. Petitioners indicate that bottom-
founded platforms will not be used during exploration activities due to
water depths greater than 30 meters (m) (100 feet [ft]) and possible
pack ice incursions. Drilling operations are expected to range between
30 and 90 days at individual well sites, depending on the depth to the
target formation, and difficulties during drilling. The drilling units
and any support vessels typically enter the Chukchi Sea at the
beginning of the season and exit the sea at the end of the season.
Drillships are generally self-propelled, whereas jack-up rigs must be
towed to the drill site. These drilling units are largely self-
contained with accommodations for the crew, including quarters,
galleys, and sanitation facilities.
Drilling operations will include multiple support vessels in
addition to the drillship or platform, including ice management
vessels, survey vessels, and on and offshore support facilities. For
example, each drillship is likely to be supported by one to two ice
management vessels, a barge and tug, one to two helicopter flights per
day, and one to two supply ships per week. Ice management is expected
to be required for only a small portion of the drilling season, if at
all, given the lack of sea ice observed over most current lease
holdings in the Chukchi Sea region in recent years. Most ice management
will consist of actively pushing the ice off its trajectory with the
bow of the ice management vessel, but some icebreaking could be
required. One or more ice management vessels generally support
drillships to ensure ice does not encroach on operations. Geophysical
surveys referred to as vertical seismic profiles (VSPs) will likely be
conducted at many of the Chukchi Sea region drill sites where and when
an exploration well is being drilled. The purpose of such surveys is to
ground truth existing seismic data with geological information from the
wellbore. A small airgun array is deployed at a location near or
adjacent to the drilling unit, and receivers are placed (temporarily
anchored) in the wellbore. Exploration drilling programs may entail
both onshore support facilities for air support where aircraft serving
crew changes, search and rescue, and/or re-supply functions where
support facilities will be housed and marine support where vessels may
access the shoreline. For offshore support purposes, a barge and tug
typically accompany the vessels to provide a standby safety vessel, oil
spill response capabilities, and refueling support. Most supplies
(including fuel) necessary to complete drilling activities are stored
on the drillship and support vessels. Helicopter servicing of
drillships can occur as frequently as one to two times per day.
Since 1989, five exploration wells have been drilled in the Chukchi
Sea. Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate
that up to three operators will drill a total of three to eight wells
per year in the Chukchi Sea region during the 5-year timeframe of these
final regulations (June 2013 to June 2018).
Offshore 2D and 3D Seismic Surveys
Seismic survey equipment includes sound energy sources (airguns)
and receivers (hydrophones/geophones). The airguns store compressed air
that upon release forms a bubble that expands and contracts in a
predictable pattern, emitting sound waves. The sound energy from the
source penetrates the seafloor and is reflected back to the surface
where it is recorded and analyzed to produce graphic images of the
subsurface features. Differences in the properties of the various rock
layers found at different depths reflect the sound energy at different
positions and times. This reflected energy is received by the
hydrophones housed in submerged streamers towed behind the survey
vessel.
The two general types of offshore seismic surveys, 2D and 3D
surveys, use similar technology but differ in survey transect patterns,
number of transects, number of sound sources and receptors, and data
analysis. For both types, a group of air guns is usually deployed in an
array to produce a downward focused sound signal. Air gun array volumes
for both 2D and 3D seismic surveys are expected to range from 49,161 to
65,548 cm\3\ (3,000 to 4,000 in\3\) operated at about 2,000 pounds per
square inch (psi) (13,789.5 kilopascal [kPa]). The air guns are fired
at short, regular intervals, so the arrays emit pulsed rather than
continuous sound. While most of the energy is focused downward and the
short duration of each pulse limits the total energy into the water
column, the sound can propagate horizontally for several kilometers.
Marine streamer 2D surveys use similar geophysical survey
techniques as 3D surveys, but both the mode of operation and general
vessel type used are different. The primary difference between the two
survey types is that a 3D survey has a denser grid for the transect
pattern. The 2D surveys provide a less detailed subsurface image
because the survey lines are spaced farther apart, but they are
generally designed to cover wider areas to image geologic structure on
more of a regional basis. Large prospects are easily identified on 2D
seismic data, but detailed images of the prospective areas within a
large prospect can only be seen using 3D data. The 2D seismic survey
vessels generally are smaller than 3D survey vessels, although larger
3D survey vessels are also capable of conducting 2D surveys. The 2D
source array typically consists of three or more sub-arrays of six to
eight air gun sources each. The sound source level (zero-to-peak)
associated with 2D marine seismic surveys are the same as 3D marine
seismic surveys (233 to 240 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m). Typically, a single
hydrophone streamer cable approximately 8 to 12 km (~5 to 7.5 miles
[mi]) long is towed behind the survey vessel. The 2D surveys acquire
data along single track lines that are spread more widely apart
(usually several km) than are track lines for 3D surveys (usually
several hundred meters).
A 3D source array typically consists of two to three sub-arrays of
six to nine air guns each, and is about 12.5 to 18 m (41 to 59 ft) long
and 16 to 36 m (52.5 to 118 ft) wide. The size of the source array can
vary during the seismic survey to optimize the resolution of the
geophysical data collected at any particular site. Most 3D operations
use a single source vessel; however, in a few instances, more than one
source vessel may be used. The sound source level (zero-to-peak)
associated with typical 3D seismic surveys ranges between 233 and 240
decibels (dB) at 1 m (dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m).
The receiving arrays could include multiple (4 to 16) streamer
receiver cables towed behind the source array. The survey vessel may
tow up to 12
[[Page 35368]]
cables, or streamers, of up to 8.0 km (5.0 mi) in length, spaced 50 to
150 m (164 to 492 ft) apart. Streamer cables contain numerous
hydrophone elements at fixed distances within each cable. Each streamer
can be 3 to 8 km (2 to 5 mi) long with an overall array width of up to
1,500 m (1,640 yards) between outermost streamer cables. The wide
extent of this towed equipment limits both the turning speed and the
area a vessel covers with a single pass over a geologic target. It is,
therefore, common practice to acquire data using an offset racetrack
pattern. Adjacent transit lines for a survey generally are spaced
several hundred meters apart and are parallel to each other across the
survey area. Seismic surveys are conducted day and night when ocean
conditions are favorable, and one survey effort may continue for weeks
or months throughout the open-water season, depending on the size of
the survey. Data acquisition is affected by the arrays towed by the
survey vessel and weather conditions. Typically, data are only
collected between 25 and 30 percent of the time (or 6 to 8 hours a day)
because of equipment or weather problems. In addition to downtime due
to weather, sea conditions, turning between lines, and equipment
maintenance, surveys could be suspended to avoid interactions with
biological resources. In the past, BOEM/BSEE has estimated that
individual surveys could last between 20 to 30 days (with downtime) to
cover a 322-km\2\ (200-mi\2\) area.
Both 3D and 2D seismic surveys require a largely ice-free
environment to allow effective operation and maneuvering of the air gun
arrays and long streamers. In the Chukchi Sea region, the timing and
areas of the surveys will be dictated by ice conditions. Given optimal
conditions, the data acquisition season in the Chukchi Sea could start
sometime in July and end sometime in early November. Even during the
short summer season, there are periodic incursions of sea ice; hence
there is no guarantee that any given location will be ice-free
throughout the survey.
In our analysis of the previous 5-year Chukchi Sea regulations
(2008-2013), we determined that up to three seismic programs operating
annually, totaling up to 15 surveys over the span of the regulations,
would have negligible effects on small numbers of walruses and polar
bears. Since 2006, only seven seismic surveys have been actually
conducted in total in the Chukchi Sea. For the 5-year time period of
the regulations we are promulgating today (2013 to 2018), based upon
information provided by the petitioners, the Service estimates that, in
any given year one seismic survey program (2D or 3D) would operate in
the Chukchi Sea region during the open-water season. However, to be
more comprehensive the Service analyzed an annual estimate of two
simultaneous seismic operations in the Chukchi Sea region during the
open-water season. We further estimate that each seismic survey vessel
will be accompanied or serviced by one to three support vessels, and
that helicopters may also be used for vessel support and crew changes.
Shallow Hazards Surveys
Shallow hazards surveys in the Chukchi Sea region are expected to
be conducted for all OCS leases in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.
Shallow hazards surveys, also known as site clearance or high
resolution surveys, are conducted to collect bathymetric data and
information on the shallow geology down to depths of about 450 m (1,500
ft) below the seafloor at areas identified as potential drill sites.
Detailed maps of the seafloor surface and shallow sub-surface are
produced with the resulting data in order to identify potential hazards
in the area. Shallow hazards surveys must be conducted at all
exploration drill sites in the OCS before drilling can be approved by
BOEM/BSEE. Specific requirements for these shallow hazards surveys are
presented in BOEM/BSEE's Notice to Lessee (NTL) 05-A01. Potential
hazards may include: Shallow faults; shallow gas; permafrost; hydrates;
and/or archaeological features, such as shipwrecks. Drilling permits
will only be issued by the BOEM/BSEE for locations that avoid or
minimize any risks of encountering these types of features.
Equipment used in past surveys included sub-bottom profilers,
multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side scan sonar, high resolution seismic
(airgun array or sparker), and magnetometers. Equipment to be used in
future surveys in 2013 to 2018 will be expected to be these and similar
types of equipment as required by the BOEM/BSEE NTLs.
Shallow hazards surveys are conducted from vessels during the
summer or open-water season along a series of transects, with different
line spacing depending on the proximity to the proposed drill site and
geophysical equipment to be used. Generally, a single vessel is
required to conduct the survey, but in the Chukchi Sea an additional
vessel is often used as a marine mammal monitoring platform. The
geophysical equipment is either hull mounted or towed behind the
vessel, and sometimes is located on an autonomous underwater vehicle
(AUV). Small airgun arrays with a total volume of 258 cm\3\ (40 in\3\)
and pressured to about 2,000 psi (13,789.5 kPa) have been used as the
energy source for past high resolution seismic surveys and will be
expected to be used in future surveys in 2013 to 2018, but larger or
smaller airguns under more or lesser pressure may be used. Sparkers
have also been used in the Chukchi Sea in the past and may be used in
the future. The magnetometer is used to locate and identify any human-
made ferrous objects that might be on the seafloor.
During the period of the previous regulations (2008 to 2013), four
shallow hazards and site clearance surveys were actually conducted.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate that
during the timeframe of these regulations (2013 to 2018), up to two
operators will conduct from four to seven shallow hazards surveys
annually.
Marine Geophysical Surveys
Additional types of geophysical surveys are also expected to occur.
These include ice gouge surveys, strudel scours surveys, and other
bathymetric surveys (e.g., platform and pipeline surveys). These
surveys use the same types of remote sensing geophysical equipment used
in shallow hazards surveys, but they are conducted for different
purposes in different areas and often lack a seismic (airgun)
component. Each of these types of surveys is briefly described below.
Ice Gouge Surveys
Ice gouging is the creation of troughs and ridges on the seafloor
caused by the contact of the keels of moving ice floes with
unconsolidated sediments on the seafloor. Oil and gas operators conduct
these surveys to gain an understanding of the distribution, frequency,
size, and orientation of ice gouging in their areas of interest in
order to predict the location, size, and frequency of future ice
gouging. The surveys may be conducted from June through October when
the area is sufficiently clear of ice and weather permits. Equipment to
be used in ice gouge surveys during this time may include, but may not
be limited to, sub-bottom profilers, multi-beam bathymetric sonar, and
side scan sonar.
Strudel Scour Surveys
Strudel scours are formed in the seafloor during a brief period in
the spring when river discharge commences the breakup of the sea ice.
The ice is bottom fast, with the river discharge flowing over the top
of the ice. The overflow spreads offshore and drains
[[Page 35369]]
through the ice sheet at tidal cracks, thermal cracks, stress cracks,
and seal breathing holes reaching the seafloor with enough force to
generate distinctive erosion patterns. Oil and gas operators conduct
surveys to identify locations where this phenomenon occurs and to
understand the process. Nearshore areas (State waters) by the larger
rivers are first surveyed from the air with a helicopter at the time
when rivers are discharging on to the sea ice (typically in May), to
identify any locations where the discharge is moving through the ice.
The identified areas are revisited by vessel during the open-water
season (typically July to October), and bathymetric surveys are
conducted along a series of transects over the identified areas.
Equipment to be used in the surveys in 2013 to 2018 will likely
include, but may not be limited to, multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side
scan sonar, and single beam bathymetric sonar.
Bathymetry Surveys
Some surveys are expected to determine the feasibility of future
development. This effort will include siting such things as pipeline
and platform surveys. These surveys use geophysical equipment to
delineate the bathymetry/seafloor relief and characteristics of the
surficial seafloor sediments. The surveys are conducted from vessels
along a series of transects. Equipment deployed on the vessel for these
surveys will likely include, but may not be limited to, sub-bottom
profilers, multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side scan sonar, and
magnetometers.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate
that up to two operators will conduct as many as two geophysical
surveys, including ice gouge, strudel scour, and bathymetry surveys, in
any given year during the 5-year timeframe of these regulations (2013
to 2018).
Geotechnical Surveys
Geotechnical surveys expected to occur within the Chukchi Sea
region take place offshore on leases in federal waters of the OCS and
adjacent onshore areas. Geotechnical site investigations are performed
to collect detailed data about seafloor sediments, onshore soil, and
shallow geologic structures. During site investigations, boreholes are
drilled to depths sufficient to characterize the soils within the zone
of influence. The borings, cores, or cone penetrometer data collected
at the site define the stratigraphy and geotechnical properties at that
specific location. These data are analyzed and used in determining
optimal facility locations. Site investigations that include
archaeological, biological, and ecological data assist in the
development of foundation design criteria for any planned structure.
Methodology for geotechnical surveys may vary between those conducted
offshore and onshore. Onshore geotechnical surveys will likely be
conducted in winter when the tundra is frozen. Rotary drilling
equipment will be wheeled, tracked, or sled mounted. Offshore
geotechnical studies will be conducted from dedicated vessels or
support vessels associated with other operations such as drilling.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate
that as many as two operators will conduct up to two geotechnical
surveys in any given year during the 5-year timeframe of these
regulations (2013 to 2018).
Offshore Environmental Studies
Offshore environmental studies are likely to include: Ecological
surveys of the benthos, plankton, fish, bird, and marine mammal
communities and use of Chukchi Sea waters; acoustical studies of marine
mammals; sediment and water quality analysis; and physical
oceanographic investigations of sea ice movement, currents, and
meteorology. Most bird and marine mammal surveys will be conducted from
vessels. The vessels will travel along series of transects at slow
speeds while observers on the vessels identify the number and species
of animals. Ecological sampling and marine mammal surveys will also be
conducted from fixed wing aircraft as part of the mandatory marine
mammal monitoring programs associated with seismic surveys and
exploration drilling. Various types of buoys will likely be deployed in
the Chukchi Sea for data collection.
Onshore Environmental Studies
Various types of environmental studies will likely also occur
during the life of these regulations. These could include, but may not
be limited to, hydrology studies; habitat assessments; fish and
wildlife surveys; and archaeological resource surveys. These studies
will generally be conducted by small teams of scientists based in
Chukchi Sea communities and travelling to study sites by helicopter.
Most surveys will be conducted on foot or from the air. Small boats may
be used for hydrology studies, fish surveys, and other studies in
aquatic environments.
During the previous 5-year time period of the regulations (2008-
2013), a total of six environmental studies were conducted, with one to
two conducted per year. Based upon information provided by the
petitioners, we estimate that as many as two environmental studies may
be conducted in any given year during the 5-year timeframe of these
regulations (2013 to 2018).
Additional Onshore Activities
Additional onshore activities may occur as well. The North Slope
Borough (NSB) operates the Barrow Gas Fields located south and east of
the city of Barrow. The Barrow Gas Fields include the Walakpa, South,
and East Gas Fields; of these, the Walakpa Gas Field and a portion of
the South Gas Field are located within the boundaries of the Chukchi
Sea geographical region while the East Barrow Gas Field is currently
regulated under the ITRs for the Beaufort Sea and therefore not
discussed here. The Walakpa Gas Field operation is currently accessed
by helicopter and/or a rolligon trail. The South Gas Field is
accessible by gravel road or dirt trail depending on the individual
well. Access to this field during the winter will require ice road
construction. Ice/snow road access and ice pads are proposed where
needed. In 2007, ConocoPhillips conducted an exploration program south
of Barrow near the Walakpa Gas Field. The NSB conducted drilling
activities in 2007, including drilling new gas wells, and plugged and
abandoned depleted wells in the Barrow Gas Fields. During the 5-year
timeframe of these regulations (2013 to 2018), we expect the NSB to
maintain an active presence in the gas fields with the potential for
additional maintenance of the fields.
Biological Information
Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)
The Pacific walrus is the largest pinniped species (aquatic
carnivorous mammals with all four limbs modified into flippers) in the
Arctic. Walruses are readily distinguished from other Arctic pinnipeds
by their enlarged upper canine teeth, which form prominent tusks.
Males, which have relatively larger tusks than females, also tend to
have broader skulls (Fay 1982).
Two modern subspecies of walruses are generally recognized
(Wozencraft 2005, p. 525; Integrated Taxonomic Information System,
2010): The Atlantic walrus (O. r. rosmarus), which ranges from the
central Canadian Arctic eastward to the Kara Sea (Reeves 1978), and the
Pacific walrus (O. r. divergens), which ranges across the Bering and
Chukchi seas (Fay 1982). The small, geographically isolated population
of walruses in the Laptev Sea (Heptner et al. 1976; Vishnevskaia and
Bychkov
[[Page 35370]]
1990; Andersen et al. 1998; Wozencraft 2005; Jefferson et al. 2008),
which was previously known as the Laptev walrus (Lindqvist et al.
2009), is now considered part of the Pacific walrus population.
Atlantic and Pacific walruses are genetically and morphologically
distinct from each other (Cronin et al. 1994), likely because of range
fragmentation and differentiation during glacial phases of extensive
Arctic sea ice cover (Harington 2008).
Stock Definition, Range, and Abundance
Pacific walruses are represented by a single stock of animals that
inhabit the shallow continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi
seas (Sease and Chapman 1988). Though some heterogeneity in the
populations has been documented by Jay et al. (2008) from differences
in the ratio of trace elements in the teeth, Scribner et al. (1997)
found no difference in mitochondrial or nuclear DNA among Pacific
walruses sampled from different breeding areas. The population ranges
across the international boundaries of the United States and Russian
Federation, and both nations share common interests with respect to the
conservation and management of this species. Pacific walruses are
identified and managed in the United States and the Russian Federation
as a single population (Service 2010).
Pacific walruses range across the continental shelf waters of the
northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea, relying principally on broken pack
ice habitat to access feeding areas of high benthic productivity (Fay
1982). Pacific walruses migrate up to 1,500 km (932 mi) between summer
foraging areas in the Arctic (primarily the offshore continental shelf
of the Chukchi Sea) and highly productive, seasonally ice covered
waters in the sub-Arctic (northern Bering Sea) in winter. Although many
adult male Pacific walruses remain in the Bering Sea during the ice-
free season, where they forage from coastal haulouts, most of the
population migrates north in summer and south in winter following
seasonal patterns of ice advance and retreat. Walruses are rarely
spotted south of the Aleutian archipelago; however, migrant animals
(mostly males) are occasionally reported in the North Pacific. Pacific
walruses are presently identified and managed as a single panmictic
population (Service 2010, unpublished data).
Fossil evidence suggests that walruses occurred in the northwest
Pacific during the last glacial maximum (20,000 YBP) with specimens
recovered as far south as northern California (Gingras et al. 2007;
Harrington 2008). More recently, commercial harvest records indicate
that Pacific walruses were hunted along the southern coast of the
Russian Federation in the Sea of Okhotsk and near Unimak Pass (Aleutian
Islands) and the Shumigan Islands (Alaska Peninsula) of Alaska during
the 17th Century (Elliott 1882).
Pacific walruses are highly mobile, and their distribution varies
markedly in response to seasonal and annual variations in sea ice
cover. During the January to March breeding season, walruses congregate
in the Bering Sea pack ice in areas where open leads (fractures in sea
ice caused by wind drift or ocean currents), polynyas (enclosed areas
of unfrozen water surrounded by ice) or thin ice allow access to water
(Fay 1982; Fay et al. 1984). The specific location of winter breeding
aggregations varies annually depending upon the distribution and extent
of ice. Breeding aggregations have been reported southwest of St.
Lawrence Island, Alaska; south of Nunivak Island, Alaska; and south of
the Chukotka Peninsula in the Gulf of Anadyr, Russian Federation (Fay
1982; Mymrin et al. 1990; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
In spring, as the Bering Sea pack ice deteriorates, most of the
population migrates northward through the Bering Strait to summer
feeding areas over the continental shelf in the Chukchi Sea. However,
several thousand animals, primarily adult males, remain in the Bering
Sea during the summer months, foraging from coastal haulouts in the
Gulf of Anadyr, Russian Federation, and in Bristol Bay, Alaska (Figure
1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
Summer distributions (both males and females) in the Chukchi Sea
vary annually, depending upon the extent of sea ice. When broken sea
ice is abundant, walruses are typically found in patchy aggregations
over continental shelf waters. Individual groups may range from fewer
than 10 to more than 1,000 animals (Gilbert 1999; Ray et al. 2006).
Summer concentrations have been reported in loose pack ice off the
northwestern coast of Alaska, between Icy Cape and Point Barrow, and
along the coast of Chukotka, Russian Federation, and Wrangel Island
(Fay 1982; Gilbert et al. 1992; Belikov et al. 1996). In years of low
ice concentrations in the Chukchi Sea, some animals range east of Point
Barrow into the Beaufort Sea; walruses have also been observed in the
Eastern Siberian Sea in late summer (Fay 1982; Belikov et al. 1996).
The pack ice of the Chukchi Sea usually reaches its minimum extent in
September. In years when the sea ice retreats north beyond the
continental shelf, walruses congregate in large numbers (up to several
tens of thousands of animals in some locations) at terrestrial haulouts
on Wrangel Island and other sites along the northern coast of the
Chukotka Peninsula, Russian Federation, and northwestern Alaska (Fay
1982; Belikov et al. 1996; Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007; Kavry
et al. 2008; MacCracken 2012).
In late September and October, walruses that summered in the
Chukchi Sea typically begin moving south in advance of the developing
sea ice. Satellite telemetry data indicate that male walruses that
summered at coastal haulouts in the Bering Sea also begin to move
northward towards winter breeding areas in November (Jay and Hills
2005). The male walruses' northward movement appears to be driven
primarily by the presence of females at that time of year (Freitas et
al. 2009).
Distribution in the Chukchi Sea
During the summer months, walruses are widely distributed across
the shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea. Significant
summer concentrations include near Wrangel and Herald Islands in
Russian waters and at Hanna Shoal (northwest of Point Barrow) in U.S.
waters (Jay et al. 2012). As the ice edge advances southward in the
fall, walruses reverse their migration and re-group on the Bering Sea
pack ice.
The distribution of walruses in the eastern Chukchi Sea where
exploration activities will occur is influenced primarily by the
distribution and extent of seasonal pack ice. In June and July,
scattered groups of walruses are typically found in loose pack ice
habitats between Icy Cape and Point Barrow (Fay 1982; Gilbert et al.
1992). Recent telemetry studies investigating foraging patterns in the
eastern Chukchi Sea suggest that many walruses focus foraging efforts
near Hanna Shoal, northwest of Point Barrow (Jay et al. 2012). In
August and September, concentrations of animals tend to be in areas of
unconsolidated pack ice, usually within 100 km of the leading edge of
the ice pack (Gilbert 1999). Individual groups occupying unconsolidated
pack ice typically range from fewer than 10 to more than 1,000 animals.
(Gilbert 1999; Ray et al. 2006). In August and September, the edge of
the pack ice generally retreats northward to about 71[deg] N latitude;
however in light ice years, the edge can retreat north beyond the
continental shelf (Douglas 2010). Sea ice normally reaches its minimum
(northern) extent sometime in September, and ice begins
[[Page 35371]]
to reform rapidly in October and November. Walruses typically migrate
out of the eastern Chukchi Sea in October in advance of the developing
sea ice (Fay 1982; Jay et al. 2012).
Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area
Hanna Shoal is a region of the northeastern Chukchi Sea of shallow
water and moderate to high benthic productivity (Grebmeier et al. 2006;
Dunton 2013) that is important to many species of wildlife, including
the Pacific walrus. Walruses forage in the region from June to October,
at times reaching numbers of tens of thousands of animals (Brueggeman
et al. 1990, 1991; MacCracken 2012; Jay et al. 2012). The Hanna Shoal
region has been defined variably in different technical and scientific
documents, based on different attributes such as: bathymetry, currents,
sea ice dynamics, benthic productivity, animal use patterns, and other
administrative considerations. For example, the Audubon Society (Smith
2011) defined Hanna Shoal based on bathymetry, delineating an area of
approximately 5,700 km\2\ (2,200 mi\2\). The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) (2013) defined Hanna Shoal as an area of high biological
productivity and a feeding area for various marine mammals, including
bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) and ringed seals (Pusa hispida).
Their maps delineate an area of approximately 7,876 km\2\ (3,041
mi\2\). The BOEM Environmental Studies Program reflects both a Hanna
Shoal Regional Study Area and a Hanna Shoal Core Study Area of about
720,000 km\2\ (278,000 mi\2\) and 150,000 km\2\ (58,000 mi\2\),
respectively (BOEM 2013). For the purposes of these ITRs, the Service
is delineating the Hanna Shoal region by use patterns of Pacific
walruses, hereinafter referred to as the Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area
(HSWUA), and further described below.
The Hanna Shoal region has long been recognized as a critical
foraging area for the Pacific walrus in summer and fall (Brueggeman et
al. 1990, 1991; MacCracken 2012; Jay et al. 2012), and the Service
delineated the HSWUA using walrus foraging and occupancy utilization
distributions (UDs) from Jay et al. (2012) for the months of June
through September (Figure 2; see Final Regulation Promulgation
section). Jay et al. (2012) used walrus satellite telemetry from the
Chukchi Sea to delineate UDs of walrus foraging and occupancy during
summer and fall from 2008 to 2011. The UDs described in Jay et al.
(2012) represent the probability of animals using an area during the
time specified. Utilization distributions are a commonly accepted way
to delineate areas of concentrated use by a species and the 50 percent
UD is often identified as the core use area or area of most
concentrated use in many habitat use studies (Samuel et al. 1985;
Powell 2000; Laver and Kelley 2008). We consider the combined 50
percent foraging and occupancy UDs from Jay et al. (2012) at Hanna
Shoal from June to September to represent the core use area during the
time of most concentrated use by walruses, and, therefore, the most
appropriate way to delineate the Hanna Shoal region as it pertains to
walruses.
To delineate the HSWUA, we overlaid the 50 percent UDs for both
foraging and occupancy in Jay et al. (2012) in the Hanna Shoal area, as
defined bathymetrically by Smith (2011), for the months of June through
September. The combined area of those 50 percent UDs produced two
adjacent polygons, one on the north slope of the bathymetrically
defined shoal and one on the south slope of the bathymetrically defined
shoal. We recognize that animals using the areas delineated by those
two polygons would be frequently crossing back and forth between those
areas and, therefore, joined the two polygons at the closest point on
the west and east ends. The final HSWUA totals approximately 24,600
km\2\ (9,500 mi\2\) (Figure 2; see Final Regulation Promulgation
section) and can be viewed at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/pdf/itr_fr2013_pb_pw.pdf.
We believe that it is critical to minimize disturbance to walruses
in this area of highly concentrated use during July through September.
Due to the large numbers of walruses that could be encountered in the
HSWUA from July through September, the Service has determined that
additional mitigation measures, such as seasonal restrictions, reduced
vessel traffic, or rerouting vessels, may be necessary for activities
within the HSWUA to minimize potential disturbance and ensure
consistency with the MMPA mandates that only small numbers of walruses
be affected with a negligible impact on the stock. On a case-by-case
basis, as individual LOA applications are received, we will examine the
proposed activities in light of the boundaries of the HSWUA, the nature
and timing of the proposed activities, and other available information
at the time. If the Service determines that the proposed activity is
likely to negatively impact more than small numbers of walruses, we
will consider whether additional mitigation and monitoring measures
could reduce any potential impacts to meet the small numbers and
negligible impact standards. The Service will make those determinations
on a case-by-case basis.
Population Status
The size of the Pacific walrus population has never been known with
certainty. Based on large sustained harvests in the 18th and 19th
centuries, Fay (1982) speculated that the pre-exploitation population
was represented by a minimum of 200,000 animals. Since that time,
population size is believed to have fluctuated in response to varying
levels of human exploitation. Large scale commercial harvests are
believed to have reduced the population to 50,000 to 100,000 animals by
the mid-1950s (Fay et al. 1997). The population apparently increased
rapidly in size during the 1960s and 1970s, in response to harvest
regulations that limited the take of females (Fay et al. 1989). Between
1975 and 1990, visual aerial surveys jointly conducted by the United
States and Soviet Union at 5-year intervals produced population
estimates ranging from 201,039 to 246,360 (Table 1). Efforts to survey
the Pacific walrus population were suspended by both countries after
1990, due to unresolved problems with survey methods that produced
population estimates with unknown bias and unknown, but presumably
large, variances that severely limited their utility (Speckman et al.
2012).
In 2006, a joint United States-Russian Federation survey was
conducted in the pack ice of the Bering Sea, using thermal imaging
systems to detect walruses hauled out on sea ice and satellite
transmitters to account for walruses in the water (Speckman et al.
2012). The number of walruses within the surveyed area was estimated at
129,000, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 55,000 to 507,000
individuals. This is a conservative minimum estimate, as weather
conditions forced termination of the survey before much of the
southwest Bering Sea was surveyed; animals were observed in that region
as the surveyors returned to Anchorage, Alaska. Table 1 provides a
summary of survey results.
[[Page 35372]]
Table 1--Estimates of Pacific Walrus Population Size, 1975 to 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population size \a\
Year (95% confidence Reference
interval)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975.......................... 214,687 (-20,000 to Udevitz et al.
480,000) \b\. 2001.
1980.......................... 246,360 (-20,000 to Johnson et al.
540,000). 1982; Fedoseev
1984.
1985.......................... 242,366 (-20,000 to Udevitz et al.
510,000). 2001.
1990.......................... 201,039 (-19,000 to Gilbert et al.
460,000). 1992.
2006.......................... 129,000 (55,000 to Speckman et al.
507,000). 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Due to differences in methods, comparisons of estimates across years
(population trend) are subject to several caveats and not reliable.
\b\ 95 percent confidence intervals for 1975 to 1990 are from Fig. 1 in
Hills and Gilbert (1994).
These estimates suggest that the walrus population has declined;
however, discrepancies among the survey methods and large confidence
intervals that in some cases overlap zero do not support such a
definitive conclusion. Resource managers in the Russian Federation have
concluded that the population has declined and have reduced harvest
quotas in recent years accordingly (Kochnev 2004; Kochnev 2005; Kochnev
2010, pers. comm.), based in part on the lower abundance estimate
generated from the 2006 survey. However, past survey results are not
directly comparable due to differences in survey methods, timing of
surveys, segments of the population surveyed, and incomplete coverage
of areas where walruses may have been present (Fay et al. 1997); thus,
these results do not provide a basis for determining trend in
population size (Hills and Gilbert 1994; Gilbert 1999). Whether prior
estimates are biased low or high is unknown, because of problems with
detecting individual animals on ice or land, and in open water, and
difficulties counting animals in large, dense groups (Speckman et al.
2011). In addition, no survey has ever been completed within a time
frame that could account for the redistribution of individuals (leading
to double counting or undercounting), or before weather conditions
either delayed the effort or completely terminated the survey before
the entire area of potentially occupied habitat had been covered
(Speckman et al. 2011). Due to these problems, as well as seasonal
differences among surveys (fall or spring) and despite technological
advancements that correct for some problems, we do not believe the
survey results provide a reliable basis for estimating a population
trend.
Changes in the walrus population have also been investigated by
examining changes in biological parameters over time. Based on evidence
of changes in abundance, distributions, condition indices, pregnancy
rates, and minimum breeding age, Fay et al. (1989) and Fay et al.
(1997) concluded that the Pacific walrus population increased greatly
in size during the 1960s and 1970s, and postulated that the population
was near, or had exceeded, the carrying capacity (K) of its environment
by the early 1980s. We will expect the population to decline if K is
exceeded. In addition, harvests increased in the 1980s. Changes in the
size, composition, and productivity of the sampled walruses harvested
in the Bering Strait region of Alaska over this time frame are
consistent with this hypothesis (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006; MacCracken
2012). Harvest levels declined sharply in the early 1990s, and
increased reproductive rates and earlier maturation in females
occurred, suggesting that density dependent regulatory mechanisms had
been relaxed and the population was likely below K (Garlich-Miller et
al. 2006; MacCracken 2012). However, Garlich-Miller et al. (2006) also
noted that there are no data concerning the trend in abundance of the
walrus population or the status of its prey to verify this hypothesis,
and that whether density dependent changes in life-history parameters
might have been mediated by changes in population abundance or changes
in the carrying capacity of the environment is unknown.
Habitat
The Pacific walrus is an ice-dependent species that relies on sea
ice for many aspects of its life history. Unlike other pinnipeds,
walruses are not adapted for a pelagic existence and must haul out on
ice or land regularly. Floating pack ice serves as a substrate for
resting between feeding dives (Ray et al. 2006), breeding behavior (Fay
et al. 1984), giving birth (Fay 1982), and nursing and care of young
(Kelly 2001). Sea ice provides access to offshore feeding areas over
the continental shelf of the Bering and Chukchi Seas, passive
transportation to new feeding areas (Richard 1990; Ray et al. 2006),
and isolation from terrestrial predators (Richard 1990; Kochnev 2004;
Ovsyanikov et al. 2007). Sea ice provides an extensive substrate upon
which the risk of predation and hunting is greatly reduced (Kelly 2001;
Fay 1982).
Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is comprised of first year sea
ice that formed in the most recent autumn/winter period, and multi-year
ice that has survived at least one summer melt season. Sea ice habitats
for walruses include openings or leads that provide access to the water
and to food resources. Walruses generally do not use multi-year ice or
highly compacted first year ice in which there is an absence of
persistent leads or polynyas (Richard 1990). Expansive areas of heavy
ice cover are thought to play a restrictive role in walrus
distributions across the Arctic and serve as a barrier to the mixing of
populations (Fay 1982; Dyke et al. 1999; Harington 2008). Walruses
generally do not occur farther south than the maximum extent of the
winter pack ice, possibly due to their reliance on sea ice for breeding
and rearing young (Fay et al. 1984) and isolation from terrestrial
predators (Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007), or because of the
higher densities of benthic invertebrates in northern waters (Grebmeier
et al. 2006a).
Walruses may utilize ice that is greater than 20 cm (~8 in), but
generally require ice thicknesses of 50 cm (~20 in) or more to support
their weight, and are not found in areas of extensive, unbroken ice
(Fay 1982; Richard 1990). Thus, in winter they concentrate in areas of
broken pack ice associated with divergent ice flow or along the margins
of persistent polynyas (Burns et al. 1981; Fay et al. 1984; Richard
1990) in areas with abundant food resources (Ray et al. 2006). Females
with young generally spend the summer months in pack ice habitats of
the Chukchi Sea. Some authors have suggested that the size and
topography of individual ice floes are important features in the
selection of ice haulouts, noting that some animals have been observed
returning to the same ice floe between feeding bouts (Ray et al. 2006).
Conversely, walruses can and will exploit a broad range of ice types
and
[[Page 35373]]
ice concentrations in order to stay in preferred foraging or breeding
areas (Freitas et al. 2009; Jay et al. 2010; Ray et al. 2010). Walruses
tend to make shorter foraging excursions when they are using sea ice
rather than land haulouts (Udevitz et al. 2009), suggesting that it is
more energetically efficient for them to haulout on ice than forage
from shore. Fay (1982) noted that several authors reported that when
walruses had the choice of ice or land for a resting place, ice was
always selected. However, walrus occupancy of an area can be somewhat
independent of ice conditions. Many walruses will stay over productive
feeding areas even to the point when the ice completely melts out. It
appears that adult females and younger animals can remain at sea for a
week or two before coming to shore to rest.
When suitable sea ice is not available, walruses haul out on land
to rest. A wide variety of substrates, ranging from sand to boulders,
are used. Isolated islands, points, spits, and headlands are occupied
most frequently. The primary consideration for a terrestrial haulout
site appears to be isolation from disturbances and predators, although
social factors, learned behavior, protection from strong winds and
surf, and proximity to food resources also likely influence the choice
of terrestrial haulout sites (Richard 1990). Walruses tend to use
established haulout sites repeatedly and exhibit some degree of
fidelity to these sites (Jay and Hills 2005), although the use of
coastal haulouts appears to fluctuate over time, possibly due to
localized prey depletion (Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000). Human
disturbance is also thought to influence the choice of haulout sites;
many historic haulouts in the Bering Sea were abandoned in the early
1900s when the Pacific walrus population was subjected to high levels
of exploitation (Fay 1982; Fay et al. 1984).
Adult male walruses use land-based haulouts more than females or
young, and consequently, have a greater geographical distribution
through the ice-free season. Many adult males remain in the Bering Sea
throughout the ice-free season, making foraging trips from coastal
haulouts in Bristol Bay, Alaska, and the Gulf of Anadyr, Russian
Federation (Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a), while females and
juvenile animals generally stay with the drifting ice pack throughout
the year (Fay 1982). Females with dependent young may prefer sea ice
habitats because coastal haulouts pose greater risk from trampling
injuries and predation (Fay and Kelly 1980; Ovsyanikov et al. 1994;
Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007; Kavry et al. 2008; Mulcahy et al.
2009). Females may also prefer sea ice habitats because they may have
difficulty feeding while caring for a young calf that has limited
swimming range (Cooper et al. 2006; Jay and Fischbach 2008).
The numbers of male walruses using coastal haulouts in the Bering
Sea during the summer months, and the relative uses of different
coastal haulout sites in the Bering Sea, have varied over the past
century. Harvest records indicate that walrus herds were once common at
coastal haulouts along the Alaska Peninsula and the islands of northern
Bristol Bay (Fay et al. 1984). By the early 1950s, most of the
traditional haulout areas in the southern Bering Sea had been
abandoned, presumably due to hunting pressure. During the 1950s and
1960s, Round Island was the only regularly used haulout in Bristol Bay,
Alaska. In 1960, the State of Alaska established the Walrus Islands
State Game Sanctuary, which closed Round Island to hunting. Peak counts
of walruses at Round Island increased from 1,000 to 2,000 animals in
the late 1950s (Frost et al. 1983) to more than 10,000 animals in the
early 1980s (Sell and Weiss 2010), but subsequently declined to 2,000
to 5,000 over the past decade (Sell and Weiss 2010). General
observations indicate that declining walrus counts at Round Island may,
in part, reflect a redistribution of animals to other coastal sites in
the Bristol Bay region. For example, walruses have been observed
increasingly regularly at the Cape Seniavin haulout on the Alaska
Peninsula since the 1970s, and at Cape Pierce and Cape Newenham in
northwest Bristol Bay since the early 1980s (Jay and Hills 2005;
Winfree 2010; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a), and more
recently at Hagemeister Island.
Traditional male summer haulouts along the Bering Sea coast of the
Russian Federation include sites along the Kamchatka Peninsula, the
Gulf of Anadyr (most notably Rudder and Meechkin spits), and
Arakamchechen Island (Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000; Figure 1 in Garlich-
Miller et al. 2011a). Walruses have not occupied several of the
southernmost haulouts along the coast of Kamchatka in recent years, and
the number of animals in the Gulf of Anadyr has also declined in recent
years (Kochnev 2005). Factors influencing abundance at Bering Sea
haulouts are poorly understood, but may include changes in prey
densities near the haulouts, changes in population size, disturbance
levels, and changing seasonal distributions (Jay and Hills 2005)
(presumably mediated by sea ice coverage or temperature).
Historically, coastal haulouts along the Arctic (Chukchi Sea) coast
have been used less consistently during the summer months than those in
the Bering Sea because of the presence of pack ice for much of the year
in the Chukchi Sea. Since the mid-1990s, reductions of summer sea ice
coincided with a marked increase in the use of coastal haulouts along
the Chukchi Sea coast of the Russian Federation during the summer
months (Kochnev 2004; Kavry et al. 2008). Large, mixed (composed of
various age and sex groups) herds of walruses, up to several tens of
thousands of animals, began to use coastal haulouts on Wrangel Island,
Russian Federation, in the early 1990s, and several coastal haulouts
along the northern Chukotka coastline of the Russian Federation have
emerged in recent years, likely as a result of reductions in summer sea
ice in the Chukchi Sea (Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007; Kavry et
al. 2008; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
In 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011, walruses were also observed hauling
out in large numbers with mixed sex and age groups along the Chukchi
Sea coast of Alaska in late August, September, and October (Thomas et
al. 2009; Service 2010, unpublished data; Garlich-Miller et al. 2011b;
MacCracken 2012). Monitoring studies conducted in association with oil
and gas exploration suggest that the use of coastal haulouts along the
Arctic coast of Alaska during the summer months is dependent upon the
availability of sea ice. For example, in 2006 and 2008, walruses
foraging off the Chukchi Sea coast of Alaska remained with the ice pack
over the continental shelf during the months of August, September, and
October. However in 2007 and 2009, the pack ice retreated beyond the
continental shelf and large numbers of walruses hauled out on land at
several locations between Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne, Alaska
(Ireland et al. 2009; Thomas et al. 2009; Service 2010, unpublished
data; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a), and in 2010 and 2011,
at least 20,000 to 30,000 walruses were observed hauled out
approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) north of the Native Village of Point Lay,
Alaska (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011b).
Transitory coastal haulouts have also been reported in late fall
(October to November) along the southern Chukchi Sea coast, coinciding
with the southern migration. Mixed herds of walruses frequently come to
shore to rest for a few days to weeks along the coast before continuing
on their migration to the
[[Page 35374]]
Bering Sea. Cape Lisburne, Alaska, and Capes Serdtse-Kamen' and
Dezhnev, Russian Federation, are the most consistently used haulouts in
the Chukchi Sea at this time of year (Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000).
Large mixed herds of walruses have also been reported in late fall and
early winter at coastal haulouts in the northern Bering Sea at the
Punuk Islands and Saint Lawrence Island, Alaska; Big Diomede Island,
Russian Federation; and King Island, Alaska, prior to the formation of
sea ice in offshore breeding and feeding areas (Fay and Kelly 1980;
Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
Life History
Walruses are long-lived animals with low rates of reproduction,
much lower than other pinniped species. Walruses may live 35 to 40
years and some may remain reproductively active until relatively late
in life (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). Females give birth to one calf
every 2 or more years. Breeding occurs between January and March in the
pack ice of the Bering Sea. Calves are usually born in late April or
May the following year during the northward migration from the Bering
Sea to the Chukchi Sea. Calving areas in the Chukchi Sea extend from
the Bering Strait to latitude 70[deg]N (Fay et al. 1984). At birth,
walrus calves weigh approximately 65 kg (143 pounds [lb]) and are about
113 cm (44.5 in) long (Fay 1982). Calves are capable of entering the
water shortly after birth, but tend to haulout frequently, until their
swimming ability and blubber layer are well developed. Females tend
newborn calves closely and accompany their mother from birth until
weaned after 2 years or more. Cows brood neonates to aid in their
thermoregulation (Fay and Ray 1968), and carry them on their back or
under their flipper while in the water (Gehnrich 1984). Females with
newborns often join to form large ``nursery herds'' (Burns 1970).
Summer distribution of females and young walruses is related to the
movements of the pack ice relative to feeding areas.
After the first 7 years of life, the growth rate of female walruses
declines rapidly, and they reach a maximum body size by approximately
10 years of age. Females reach sexual maturity at 4 to 9 years of age.
Adult females can reach lengths of up to 3 m (9.8 ft) and weigh up to
1,100 kg (2,425 lb). Male walruses tend to grow faster and for a longer
period than females. Males become fertile at 5 to 7 years of age;
however, they are usually unable to compete for mates until they reach
full adult body size at 15 to 16 years of age. Adult males can reach
lengths of 3.5 m (11.5 ft) and can weigh more than 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)
(Fay 1982).
Behavior
Walruses are social and gregarious animals. They tend to travel in
groups and haul out of the water to rest on ice or land in densely
packed groups. On land or ice, in any season, walruses tend to lie in
close physical contact with each other. Young animals often lie on top
of adults. Group size can range from a few individuals up to several
thousand animals (Gilbert 1999; Kastelein 2002; Jefferson et al. 2008).
At any time of the year, when groups are disturbed, stampedes from a
haulout can result in injuries and mortalities. Calves and young
animals are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries (Fay 1980;
Fay and Kelly 1980). The reaction of walruses to disturbance ranges
from no reaction to escape into the water, depending on the
circumstances (Fay et al. 1984). Many factors play into the severity of
the response, including the age and sex of the animals, the size and
location of the group (on ice, in water, Fay et al. 1984). Females with
calves appear to be most sensitive to disturbance, and animals on shore
are more sensitive than those on ice (Fay et al. 1984). A fright
response caused by disturbance can cause stampedes on a haulout,
resulting in injuries and mortalities (Fay and Kelly 1980).
Mating occurs primarily in January and February in broken pack ice
habitat in the Bering Sea. Breeding bulls follow herds of females and
compete for access to groups of females hauled out onto sea ice. Males
perform visual and acoustical displays in the water to attract females
and defend a breeding territory. Sub-dominant males remain on the
periphery of these aggregations and apparently do not display.
Intruders into display areas are met with threat displays and physical
attacks. Individual females leave the resting herd to join a male in
the water, where copulation occurs (Fay et al. 1984; Sjare and Stirling
1996).
The social bond between the mother and calf is very strong, and it
is unusual for a cow to become separated from her calf (Fay 1982). The
calf normally remains with its mother for at least 2 years, sometimes
longer, if not supplanted by a new calf (Fay 1982). After separation
from their mother, young females tend to remain with groups of adult
females, whereas young males gradually separate from the females and
begin to associate with groups of other males. Walruses appear to base
their individual social status on a combination of body size, tusk
size, and aggressiveness. Individuals do not necessarily associate with
the same group of animals and must continually reaffirm their social
status in each new aggregation (Fay 1982; NAMMCO 2004).
Walruses produce a variety of sounds (barks, knocks, grunts, rasps,
clicks, whistles, contact calls, etc.; Miller 1985; Stirling et al.
1987), which range in frequency from 0.1 to 4,000 hertz [Hz] (Miller
1985; Richardson et al. 1995). Airborne vocalizations accompany nearly
every social interaction that occurs on land or ice (Miller 1985;
Charrier et al. 2011) and facilitate kin recognition, male breeding
displays, recognition of conspecifics, and female mate choice (Insley
et al. 2003; Charrier et al. 2011). Miller (1985) indicated that barks
and other calls were used to promote group cohesion and prompted herd
members to attend to young distressed animals. Walruses also vocalize
extensively while underwater, which has been used to track movements,
study behavior, and infer relative abundance (Stirling et al. 1983;
Hannay et al. 2012, Mouy et al. 2012). The purposes of underwater
vocalizations are not explicitly known but are associated with breeding
(Ray and Watkins 1975; Stirling et al. 1987; Sjare et al. 2003),
swimming, and diving (Hannay et al. 2012). Stirling et al. (1987)
suggested that variation among individuals in stereotyped underwater
calls may be used to identify individuals. Mouy et al. (2012) opined
that knocks made while diving may be used to locate the bottom and
identify bottom substrates associated with prey. Underwater
vocalizations may also be used to communicate with other walruses.
Because of walrus grouping behavior, all vocal communications occur
within a short distance (Miller 1985). Walruses' underwater
vocalizations can be detected for only a few kilometers (Mouy et al.
2012) and likely do not act as long distance communication.
Prey
Walruses consume mostly benthic (region at the bottom of a body of
water) invertebrates and are highly adapted to obtain bivalves (Fay
1982; Bowen and Siniff 1999; Born et al. 2003; Dehn et al. 2007; Boveng
et al. 2008; Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009). Fish and other vertebrates
have occasionally been found in their stomachs (Fay 1982; Sheffield and
Grebmeier 2009). Walruses root in the bottom sediment with their
muzzles and use their whiskers to locate prey items. They use their
fore flippers, nose, and jets of water to extract prey buried up to 32
cm
[[Page 35375]]
(12.6 in) (Fay 1982; Oliver et al. 1983; Kastelein 2002; Levermann et
al. 2003). The foraging behavior of walruses is thought to have a major
impact on benthic communities in the Bering and Chukchi Seas (Oliver et
al. 1983; Klaus et al. 1990). Ray et al. (2006) estimate that walruses
consume approximately 3 million metric tons (3,307 tons) of benthic
biomass annually, and that the area affected by walruses foraging is in
the order of thousands of sq km (thousands of sq mi) annually.
Consequently, walruses play a major role in benthic ecosystem structure
and function, which Ray et al. (2006) suggested increased nutrient flux
and productivity.
The earliest studies of food habits were based on examination of
stomachs from walruses killed by hunters. These reports indicated that
walruses were primarily feeding on bivalves (clams), and that non-
bivalve prey was only incidentally ingested (Fay 1982; Sheffield et al.
2001). However, these early studies did not take into account the
differential rate of digestion of prey items (Sheffield et al. 2001).
Additional research indicates that stomach contents include over 100
taxa of benthic invertebrates from all major phyla (Fay 1982; Sheffield
and Grebmeier 2009), and while bivalves remain the primary component,
walruses are not adapted to a diet solely of clams. Other prey items
have similar energetic benefits (Wacasey and Atkinson 1987). Based on
analysis of the contents from fresh stomachs of Pacific walruses
collected between 1975 and 1985 in the Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea, prey
consumption likely reflects benthic invertebrate composition (Sheffield
and Grebmeier 2009). Of the large number of different types of prey,
statistically significant differences between males and females from
the Bering Sea were found in the occurrence of only two prey items, and
there were no statistically significant differences in results for
males and females from the Chukchi Sea (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009).
Although these data are for Pacific walruses stomachs collected 25 to
35 years ago, we have no reason to believe there has been a change in
the general pattern of prey use described here.
Walruses typically swallow invertebrates without shells in their
entirety (Fay 1982). Walruses remove the soft parts of mollusks from
their shells by suction, and discard the shells (Fay 1982). Born et al.
(2003) reported that Atlantic walruses consumed an average of 53.2
bivalves (range 34 to 89) per dive. Based on caloric need and
observations of captive walruses, walruses require approximately 29 to
74 kg (64 to 174 lbs) of food per day (Fay 1982). Adult males forage
little during the breeding period (Fay 1982; Ray et al. 2006), while
lactating females may eat two to three times that of non-pregnant, non-
lactating females (Fay 1982). Calves up to 1 year of age depend
primarily on their mother's milk (Fay 1982) and are gradually weaned in
their second year (Fisher and Stewart 1997).
Although walruses are capable of diving to depths of more than 250
m (820 ft) (Born et al.), they usually forage in waters of 80 m (262
ft) or less (Fay and Burns 1988, Born et al. 2003; Kovacs and Lydersen
2008), presumably because of higher productivity of their benthic foods
in shallow waters (Fay and Burns 1988; Carey 1991; Jay et al. 2001;
Grebmeier et al. 2006b; Grebmeier et al. 2006a). Walruses make foraging
trips from land or ice haulouts that range from a few hours up to
several days and up to 100 km (60 mi) (Jay et al. 2001; Born et al.
2003; Ray et al. 2006; Udevitz et al. 2009). Walruses tend to make
shorter and more frequent foraging trips when sea ice is used as a
foraging platform compared to terrestrial haulouts (Udevitz et al.
2009). Satellite telemetry data for walruses in the Bering Sea in April
of 2004, 2005, and 2006 showed they spent an average of 46 hours in the
water between resting bouts on ice, which averaged 9 hours (Udevitz et
al. 2009). Because females and young travel with the retreating pack
ice in the spring and summer, they are passively transported northward
over feeding grounds across the continental shelves of the Bering and
Chukchi Seas. Male walruses appear to have greater endurance than
females, with foraging excursions from land haulouts that can last up
to 142 hours (about 6 days) (Jay et al. 2001).
Mortality
Polar bears are known to prey on walrus calves, and killer whales
(Orcinus orca) have been known to take all age classes of walruses.
Predation levels are thought to be highest near terrestrial haulout
sites where large aggregations of walruses can be found; however, few
observations exist for offshore environs. Pacific walruses have been
hunted by coastal Natives in Alaska and Chukotka for thousands of
years. Exploitation of the Pacific walrus population by Europeans has
also occurred in varying degrees since the late 17th century. Currently
only Native Alaskans and Chukotkans can hunt Pacific walruses to meet
subsistence needs. The Service, in partnership with the Eskimo Walrus
Commission (EWC) and the Association of Traditional Marine Mammal
Hunters of Chukotka, administered subsistence harvest monitoring
programs in Alaska and Chukotka between 2000 to 2005. Harvests from
2006 to 2010 averaged 4,854 walruses per year (Service, unpubl. data).
These mortality estimates include corrections for under-reported
harvest and struck and lost animals.
Intra-specific trauma is also a known source of injury and
mortality. Disturbance events can cause walruses to stampede into the
water and have been known to result in hundreds to thousands of
injuries and mortalities. The risk of stampede-related injuries
increases with the number of animals hauled out. Calves and young
animals at the perimeter of these herds are particularly vulnerable to
trampling injuries.
Polar bears (Ursus maritimus)
Stock Definition and Range
Polar bears are circumpolar in their distribution in the northern
hemisphere. In Alaska, polar bears have historically been observed as
far south in the Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island and the Pribilof
Islands (Ray 1971). Two subpopulations, or stocks, occur in Alaska: The
Chukchi/Bering Seas stock (CS), and the Southern Beaufort Sea stock
(SBS). This final rule primarily discusses the CS stock. A detailed
description of the CS and SBS polar bear stocks can be found in the
Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Stock Assessment Reports at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_sbs_polar_bear_sar.pdf and
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_cbs_polar_bear_sar.pdf. A summary of the CS polar bear stock is described below.
The CS stock is widely distributed on the pack ice in the Chukchi
Sea and northern Bering Sea and adjacent coastal areas in Alaska and
Chukotka, Russia. The northeastern boundary of the CS population is
near the Colville Delta in the central Beaufort Sea (Garner et al.1990;
Amstrup 1995; Amstrup et al. 2005) and the western boundary is near the
Kolyma River in northeastern Siberia. The population's southern
boundary is determined by the extent of annual sea ice in the Bering
Sea. It is important to note that the eastern boundary of the CS
population constitutes a large overlap zone with bears in the SBS
population (Amstrup et al. 2004). In this large overlap zone, roughly
north of Barrow, Alaska, it is thought that polar bears are
approximately 50 percent from the CS population and 50 percent from the
SBS population (Amstrup et al. 2004; Obbard et al. 2010). Currently,
capture based studies are being conducted by
[[Page 35376]]
the Service in the U.S. portion of the Chukchi Sea to provide updated
information on population delineation and habitat use.
Distribution in the Chukchi Sea
Polar bears are common in the Chukchi Sea and their distribution is
influenced by the movement of the seasonal pack ice. Polar bears in the
Chukchi Sea migrate seasonally with the pack ice but are typically
dispersed throughout the region anywhere sea ice and prey may be found
(Garner et al. 1990; Amstrup 2003). The distance between the northern
and southern extremes of the seasonal pack ice in the Chukchi/Bearing
Seas is approximately 1,300 km (~807 mi). There may be, however,
significant differences year to year. Sea ice throughout the Arctic is
changing rapidly and dramatically due to climate change (Douglas 2010).
In May and June, polar bears are likely to be encountered over
relatively shallow continental shelf waters associated with ice as they
move northward from the northern Bering Sea, through the Bering Strait
into the southern Chukchi Sea. During the fall and early winter period
polar bears are likely to be encountered in the Chukchi Sea during
their southward migration in late October and November. Polar bears are
dependent upon the sea ice for foraging, and the most productive areas
seem to be near the ice edge, leads, or polynyas where the ocean depth
is minimal (Durner et al. 2004). In addition, polar bears may be
present along the shoreline in this area, as they will
opportunistically scavenge on marine mammal carcasses washed up along
the shoreline (Kalxdorff and Fischbach 1998).
Population Status
The global population estimate of polar bears is approximately
20,000 to 25,000 individuals (Obbard et al. 2010). Polar bears
typically occur at low densities throughout their circumpolar range
(DeMaster and Stirling 1981). The CS stock likely increased after the
level of harvest in the United States was reduced subsequent to passage
of the MMPA in 1972; however, its status is now considered to be
declining based on reported high levels of illegal killing in Russia
combined with continued subsistence harvest in the United States, and
observed and projected losses in sea ice habitat (Obbard et al. 2010).
Polar bears in the CS stock are classified as depleted under the MMPA
and listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). It has been difficult to obtain
a reliable population estimate for this stock due to the vast and
inaccessible nature of the habitat, movement of bears across
international boundaries, logistical constraints of conducting studies
in Russian Federation territory, and budget limitations (Amstrup and
DeMaster 1988; Garner et al. 1992; Garner et al. 1998; Evans et al.
2003). The recent estimate of the CS stock is approximately 2,000
animals, based on extrapolation of aerial den surveys (Lunn et al.
2002; USFWS 2010). Estimates of the stock have been derived from
observations of dens and aerial surveys (Chelintsev 1977; Stishov
1991a; Stishov 1991b; Stishov et al. 1991); however, these estimates
have wide confidence intervals, are considered to be of little value
for management, and cannot be used to evaluate status and trend for
this stock. Reliable estimates of population size based upon
traditional wildlife research methods such as capture-recapture or
aerial surveys are not available for this region, and measuring the
population size remains a research challenge (Evans et al. 2003).
Current and new research studies in the United States and Russian
Federation are aimed at monitoring population status via ecological
indicators (e.g., recruitment rates and body condition) and reducing
uncertainty associated with estimates of survival and population size.
Habitat
Polar bears depend on the sea-ice-dominated ecosystem for survival.
Polar bears of the Chukchi Sea are subject to the movements and
coverage of the pack ice and annual ice as they are dependent on the
ice as a platform for hunting, feeding, and mating. Historically, polar
bears of the Chukchi Sea have spent most of their time on the annual
ice in near-shore, shallow waters over the productive continental
shelf, which is associated with the shear zone and the active ice
adjacent to the shear zone. Sea ice and food availability are two
important factors affecting the distribution of polar bears and their
use of habitat. During the ice-covered season, bears use the extent of
the annual ice. The most extensive north-south movements of polar bears
are associated with the spring and fall ice movement. For example,
during the 2006 ice-covered season, six bears radio-collared in the
Beaufort Sea were located in the Chukchi and Bering Seas as far south
as 59[deg] latitude, which was the farthest extent of the annual ice
during 2006. In addition, a small number of bears sometimes remain on
the Russian and Alaskan coasts during the initial stages of ice retreat
in the spring.
Polar bear distribution during the open-water season in the Chukchi
Sea, where maximum open water occurs in September, is dependent upon
the location of the ice edge as well. The summer ice pack can be
unconsolidated, and segments move great distances by wind, carrying
polar bears with them. Recent telemetry movement data are lacking for
bears in the Chukchi Sea; however, an increased trend by polar bears to
use coastal habitats in the fall during open-water and freeze-up
conditions has been noted by researchers since 1992. Recently, during
the minimum sea ice extents, which occurred in 2005 and 2007, polar
bears exhibited this coastal movement pattern as observations from
Russian biologists and satellite telemetry data of bears in the
Beaufort Sea indicated that bears were found on the sea ice or along
the Chukotka coast during the open-water period.
Changes in sea ice are occurring in the Chukchi Sea because of
climate change (Service 2010). With sea ice decreasing, scientists are
observing effects of climate change on polar bear habitat, such as an
increased amount of open water for longer periods; a reduction in the
stable, multi-year ice; and a retraction of sea ice away from
productive continental shelf areas (Service 2010). Polar bears using
the Chukchi Sea are currently experiencing the initial effects of
changes in the sea-ice conditions (Rode and Regehr et al. 2007) and
will be vulnerable to seasonal changes in sea ice that could limit
their access to prey.
As a measure to protect polar bears and their habitat from the
effects of climate change, the Service designated critical habitat for
polar bear populations in the United States effective January 6, 2011
(75 FR 76086; December 7, 2010). Critical habitat identifies geographic
areas that contain features essential for the conservation of an
endangered or threatened species, and that may require special
management or protection. On January 13, 2013 the U.S. District Court
for the District of Alaska issued an order (Alaska Oil and Gas
Association and American Petroleum Institute v. Salazar, Case No. 3:11-
cv-0025-RRB) that vacated and remanded the polar bear critical habitat
final rule to the Service.
Although the critical habitat final rule has been vacated, the
Service still has an obligation to consider the potential impacts of
Industry activities upon polar bear habitat. Because the Service
believes the habitat identified in the critical habitat final rule is
important in any event, our analysis of potential
[[Page 35377]]
impacts of Industry activities upon polar bear habitat evaluates
impacts on the following habitat types: Barrier island habitat, sea ice
habitat (both described in geographic terms), and terrestrial denning
habitat (a functional determination). Barrier island habitat includes
coastal barrier islands and spits along Alaska's coast, and is used for
denning, refuge from human disturbance, access to maternal dens and
feeding habitat, and travel along the coast. Sea ice habitat is located
over the continental shelf, and includes water 300 m (~984 ft) or less
in depth. Terrestrial denning habitat includes lands within 32 km (~20
mi) of the northern coast of Alaska between the Canadian border and the
Kavik River, and within 8 km (~5 mi) between the Kavik River and
Barrow. The total area designated covers approximately 484,734 sq km
(~187,157 sq mi), and is entirely within the lands and waters of the
United States.
Important polar bear habitat is described in detail in the final
rule that designated polar bear critical habitat (75 FR 76086; December
7, 2010). You can view the rule at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/federal_register_notice.pdf.
Life History
Polar bears are specially adapted for life in the Arctic and are
distributed throughout most ice-covered seas of the circumpolar
Northern Hemisphere (Amstrup 2003). They are generally limited to areas
where the sea is ice-covered for much of the year; however, polar bears
are not evenly distributed throughout their range. They are most
abundant near the shore in shallow water areas, and in other areas
where currents and ocean upwelling increase marine productivity and
maintain some open water during the ice covered season (Stirling and
Smith 1975; Stirling et al. 1981; Amstrup and DeMaster 1988; Stirling
1990; Stirling and [Oslash]ritsland 1995; Stirling and Lunn 1997;
Amstrup et al. 2000; Amstrup 2003). Over most of their range, polar
bears remain on the sea ice year-round, or spend only short periods on
land (Amstrup 2003).
Denning and Reproduction
Female polar bears without dependent cubs breed in the spring.
Females can produce their first litter of cubs at 5 to 6 years of age
(Stirling et al. 1976; Stirling et al. 1977; Lentfer and Hensel 1980;
Lentfer et al. 1980; Ramsay and Stirling 1982, 1988; Furnell and
Schweinsburg 1984; Amstrup 2003). Pregnant females typically enter
maternity dens from November through December, and the young are
usually born in late December or early January (Lentfer and Hensel
1980; Amstrup 2003). Only pregnant females den for an extended period
during the winter; other polar bears may excavate temporary dens to
escape harsh winter conditions, but otherwise remain active year-round
(Amstrup 2003). Each pregnancy can result in up to three cubs, an
average pregnancy results in two cubs being born. The average
reproductive interval for a polar bear is 3 to 4 years, and a female
polar bear can produce about 8 to 10 cubs in her lifetime. In healthy
populations, 50 to 60 percent of the cubs may survive through their
first year of life after leaving the den (Amstrup 2003). In late March
or early April, the female and cubs emerge from their den. Polar bears
have extended maternal care and most dependent young remain with their
mother for approximately 2.3 years (Amstrup 2003). If the mother moves
young cubs from the den before they can walk or withstand the cold,
mortality of the cubs may result. Therefore, it is thought that
successful denning, birthing, and rearing activities require a
relatively undisturbed environment. Amstrup (2003), however, observed
that polar bear females in a den are able to cope with and can display
remarkable tolerance for a variety of human disturbance.
Radio and satellite telemetry studies indicate that denning can
occur in multi-year pack ice and on land. Recent studies of the SBS
indicate that the proportion of dens on pack ice have declined from
approximately 60 percent from 1985 to 1994, to 40 percent from 1998 to
2004 (Fischbach et al. 2007). In Alaska, areas of maternal polar bear
dens of both the CS and SBS stocks appear to be less concentrated than
stocks located in Canada and the Russian Federation. Though some
variations in denning occur among polar bears from various stocks,
there are significant similarities. A common trait of polar bear
denning habitat is topographic features that accumulate enough drifted
snow for females to excavate a den (Amstrup 2003; Durner et al. 2003;
Durner et al. 2006). Certain areas, such as barrier islands (linear
features of low elevation land adjacent to the main coastline that are
separated from the mainland by bodies of water), river bank drainages,
much of the North Slope coastal plain, and coastal bluffs that occur at
the interface of mainland and marine habitat receive proportionally
greater use for denning than other areas by bears from the SBS stock
(Durner et al. 2003; Durner et al. 2006). Maternal denning occurs on
tundra-bearing barrier islands along the Beaufort Sea and in the large
river deltas, such as the Colville and Canning Rivers. Denning of bears
from the CS stock occurs primarily on Wrangel and Herald Islands, and
on the Chukotka coast in the Russian Federation. Though maternal
denning habitat is found on the western coast of Alaska, denning on
land for the U.S. portion of the CS stock is not common. However,
occasional reports as well as the traditional knowledge of Alaska
Natives indicate that it does happen.
Prey
Ringed seals are the primary prey of polar bears in most areas.
Bearded seals are also common prey for polar bears in the CS stock.
Pacific walrus calves are hunted occasionally, and walrus carcasses are
scavenged at haulouts where trampling occurs. Polar bears will
occasionally feed on bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) carcasses
opportunistically wherever they may wash ashore and at Point Barrow,
Cross Island, and Barter Island, which are areas where the remains of
bowhead whales harvested for subsistence purposes are deposited. There
are also reports of polar bears killing beluga whales (Delphinapterus
leucas) trapped in the ice.
Utilization of sea ice is a vital component of polar bear predatory
behavior. Polar bears use sea ice as a platform to hunt seals, travel,
seek mates, and rest, among other things. They may hunt along leads,
polynyas, and other areas of open water associated with sea ice. Polar
bears employ a diverse range of methods and tactics to hunt prey. They
may wait motionless for extended periods at a seal breathing hole, or
may use scent to locate a seal lair then break through the roof; seal
lairs are excavated in snow drifts on top of the ice. Polar bears may
ambush seals along an ice edge from the ice or from the water. Polar
bears also stalk seals hauled out on the ice during warmer weather in
the spring. These are just few examples of the predatory methods of
polar bears. The common factor is the presence of sea ice in order for
polar bears to access prey. Due to changing sea ice conditions, the
area and time period of open water and proportion of marginal ice has
increased. On average, ice in the Chukchi Sea is melting sooner and
retreating farther north each year, and re-forming later. The annual
period of time that sea ice is over the shallow, productive waters of
the continental shelf is also diminishing. These effects may limit the
availability of seals to polar bears, as the most productive areas
[[Page 35378]]
for seals appear to be over the shallow waters of the continental
shelf.
On December 28, 2012, NMFS issued a final determination to list the
ringed and bearded ice seal populations (77 FR 76706 and 77 FR 76740,
respectively) that exist in U.S. waters as threatened under the ESA.
The loss of ice and snow cover were the most significant conservation
concerns in regards to the ice seals, and NMFS concluded that sea ice
and snow cover will likely further decrease in the foreseeable future
resulting in population declines that threaten the survival of both
seal populations.
Mortality
Natural causes of mortality among polar bears are not well
understood (Amstrup 2003). Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30 years
in captivity); have no natural predators, except other polar bears; and
do not appear prone to death by diseases or parasites (Amstrup 2003).
Accidents and injuries incurred in the dynamic and harsh sea ice
environment, injuries incurred while fighting other bears, starvation
(usually during extreme youth or old age), freezing (also more common
during extreme youth or old age), and drowning are all known natural
causes of polar bear mortality (Derocher and Stirling 1996; Amstrup
2003). Cannibalism by adult males on cubs and other adult bears is also
known to occur; however, it is not thought that this is a common or
significant cause of mortality. After natural causes and old age, the
most significant source of polar bear mortality is from humans hunting
polar bears (Amstrup 2003). Other sources of polar bear mortality
related to human activities, though few and very rare, include research
activities, euthanasia of sick or injured bears, and defense of life
kills by non-Natives (Brower et al. 2002).
Subsistence Use and Harvest Patterns of Pacific Walruses and Polar
Bears
The Alaska Native communities most likely to be impacted by oil and
gas activities projected to occur in the Chukchi Sea during the 5-year
timeframe of these regulations are: Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay,
Point Hope, Kivalina, Kotzebue, Shishmaref, Little Diomede, Gambell,
and Savoonga. However, all communities that harvest Pacific walruses or
polar bears in the Chukchi Sea region could be affected by Industry
activities. Pacific walruses and polar bears are harvested by Alaska
Natives for subsistence purposes. The harvest of these species plays an
important role in the culture and economy of many villages throughout
northern and western coastal Alaska. Walrus meat is consumed by humans
while the ivory is used to manufacture traditional handicrafts. Alaska
Natives hunt polar bears primarily for their fur, which is used to
manufacture cold weather clothing and handicrafts, but also for their
meat.
Under section 101(b) of the MMPA, Alaska Natives who reside in
Alaska and dwell on the coast of the north Pacific Ocean or the Arctic
Ocean are allowed to harvest walruses and polar bears if such harvest
is for subsistence purposes or for purposes of creating and selling
authentic Native articles of handicrafts and clothing, as long as the
harvest is not done in a wasteful manner. Additionally, and similar to
the exemption under the MMPA, section 10(e) of the ESA allows for the
continued harvest of species listed as endangered or threatened in
Alaska for subsistence purposes.
The sale of handmade clothing and handicrafts made of walrus or
polar bear parts is an important source of income in these remote
Alaska Native communities. Fundamentally, the production of handicrafts
is not a commercial activity, but rather a continuation and adaptation
to a market economy of an ancient Alaska Native tradition of making and
then bartering handicrafts and clothing for other needed items. The
limited cash that Alaska Native villagers can make from handmade
clothing and handicrafts is vital to sustain their subsistence hunting
and fishing way of life (Pungowiyi 2000).
The Service collects information on the subsistence harvest of
Pacific walruses and polar bears in Alaska through the Walrus Harvest
Monitor Program (WHMP) and the Marking, Tagging and Reporting Program
(MTRP). The WHMP is an observer-based program focused on the harvest of
Pacific walruses from the St. Lawrence Island communities Gambell and
Savoonga. The MTRP program is administered through a network of
``taggers'' employed in subsistence hunting communities. The marking
and tagging rule requires that hunters report harvested walruses and
polar bears to MTRP taggers within 30 days of the harvest. Taggers also
certify (tag) specified parts (ivory tusks for walruses, hide and skull
for polar bears) to help control illegal take and trade. The MTRP
reports are thought to underestimate total U.S. Pacific walrus and
polar bear subsistence harvest. Harvest levels of polar bears and
walruses can vary considerably between years, presumably in response to
differences in animal distribution, sea ice conditions, and hunter
effort.
In 2010, the Native villages of Gambell and Savoonga adopted local
ordinances that limit the number of walruses harvested to four and five
per hunting trip, respectively, which likely influences the total
number of animals harvested each year. No Chukchi Sea villages have
adopted anything similar, but they harvest comparatively few walruses.
Information on subsistence harvests of walruses and polar bears in
selected communities derived from MTRP harvest reports from 2007 to
2011 is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Number of Pacific walruses and polar bears harvested from
2007 to 2011 in 12 Alaska communities, as reported through the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) MTRP. Walrus harvest numbers
presented here are not corrected for MTRP compliance rates or struck-
and-lost estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific
walrus Polar bear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrow........................................ 24 49
Gambell....................................... 3,069 9
Kivalina...................................... 4 3
Kotzebue...................................... 2 3
Little Diomede................................ 166 14
Nome.......................................... 24 1
Point Hope.................................... 25 51
Point Lay..................................... 10 2
Savoonga...................................... 2,918 16
Shishmaref.................................... 52 6
Wainwright.................................... 71 4
Wales......................................... 41 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Walrus
Barrow
Barrow is the northernmost community within the geographical region
of the final regulations. Most walrus hunting from Barrow occurs in
June and July when the landfast ice breaks up and hunters can access
walruses by boat as they migrate north on the retreating pack ice.
Walrus hunters from Barrow sometimes range up to 60 miles from shore;
however, most harvests reported through the MTRP have occurred within
30 miles of the community.
Wainwright
Wainwright hunters have typically harvested more walruses than
other mainland coastal subsistence communities on the North Slope.
Walruses are thought to represent approximately 40 percent of this
communities' annual subsistence diet of marine mammals. Wainwright
residents hunt walruses from June through August as the ice retreats
northward. Walruses can be plentiful in the pack
[[Page 35379]]
ice near the village this time of year. Most of the harvest from
Wainwright occurs in June and July. Most walrus hunting is thought to
occur within 20 miles of the community, in all seaward directions.
Point Hope
Point Hope hunters typically begin their walrus hunt in late May
and early June as walruses migrate north into the Chukchi Sea. The sea
ice is usually well off shore of Point Hope by July and does not bring
animals back into the range of hunters until late August and September.
Most of the reported walrus harvest at Point Hope occurs in the months
of June and September. Point Hope harvest occurs mostly within 5 miles
of the coast, or near coastal haulout sites at Cape Lisburne.
Point Lay
Point Lay walrus hunting peaks in June and July. Historically,
harvests have occurred primarily within 40 miles north and south along
the coast from Point Lay and approximately 30 miles offshore. Beginning
in 2010, walruses started hauling out on the barrier island about 4
miles north of Point Lay in August and remain there until late
September to early October. This provides Point Lay hunters with new
opportunities to harvest walruses, and reports indicate that from two
to five animals are harvested at that time of year. Hunters harvest
during the early stages of haulout formation and as the haulout begins
to dissipate to avoid creating a disturbance resulting in a large
stampede.
St. Lawrence Island
St. Lawrence Island is located in the Bering Sea south of the
Bering Strait. The two communities on the island are Gambell, on
western tip, and Savoonga on the north central shore. These two
subsistence hunting communities account for the majority of the Pacific
walrus harvest in Alaska. Most of the walrus harvest from Gambell and
Savoonga takes place in the spring, but some harvest also takes place
in the fall and winter, depending on ice and weather conditions.
Hunters from Gambell typically use areas north and east of the island
while hunters from Savoonga traditionally utilize areas north, west,
and south of the island. St. Lawrence Island hunters will typically
travel from 40 to 60 miles, and as much as 90 miles, out to sea to find
walruses. The consumption of traditional subsistence foods, such as
marine mammals, and the economic value of marine mammal parts, such as
walrus ivory, is thought to be more significant in Gambell and Savoonga
than in communities on the mainland coast of Alaska.
Polar Bears
Polar bears are harvested by Alaska Natives for subsistence and
handicraft purposes. This species plays an important role in the
culture and economy of many villages throughout western and northern
coastal Alaska, where the polar bear figures prominently in Alaska
Native stories, art, traditions, and cultural activities. In these
northern and western coastal Alaskan Native villages, the taking and
use of the polar bear is a fundamental part of Alaska Native culture.
For Alaska Natives engaged in subsistence uses, the very acts of
hunting, fishing, and gathering, coupled with the seasonal cycle of
these activities and the sharing and celebrations that accompany them,
are intricately woven into the fabric of their social, psychological,
and religious life (Pungowiyi 2000).
Polar Bear Harvest Patterns in Alaska
The following summary is excerpted from the Report of the
Scientific working group to the US-Russian Federation Polar Bear
Commission (May 2010), which describes the history of the polar bear
harvest during the last century. A more detailed description can be
found at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/bilateral.htm:
Prior to the 20th century Alaska's polar bears were hunted
primarily by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes although
commercial sales of hides occurred primarily as a result of Yankee
whaling and arctic exploration ventures. During the 20th century,
polar bears were harvested for subsistence, handicrafts, and
recreational sport hunting. Based on records of skins shipped from
Alaska for 1925 to 1953, the estimated annual statewide harvest
averaged 120 bears and this take was primarily by Native hunters.
Recreational hunting by non-Native sport hunters using aircraft
became popular from 1951 to 1972, increasing the statewide annual
harvest to 150 during 1951 to 1960 and to 260 during 1960 to 1972
(Amstrup et al. 1986). During the late 1960s and 1970s the size of
the Beaufort Sea stock declined substantially (Amstrup et al. 1986)
due to excessive sport harvest. Hunting by non-Natives was
prohibited in 1973 when provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) went into effect. The prohibition of non-Native sport
hunting led to a reduction in the annual harvest of polar bears from
the Alaska-Chukotka population from 189 50 bears/year
for the period 1961 to 1972 to 80 54 bears/year for the
period 1973 to 1984 (Amstrup et al. 1986; Fig. 1). According to
Service harvest records, from 1980 through the present, harvest of
the Alaska-Chukotka population in the U.S. portion has declined.
Reasons for a decline in the Alaska native subsistence harvest are
currently unknown, but are currently being investigated. Possible
causes include decreased hunter effort, decreased polar bear
numbers, changes in polar bear distribution, and environmental
conditions that make polar bears less available to hunters.
As stated previously, harvest levels of polar bears can vary
considerably between years for a variety of reasons, including annual
variations in animal distribution, sea ice conditions, and hunter
effort. Table 2 summarizes MTRP harvest reports for polar bears for
selected western Alaska communities from 2007 to 2011, the most recent
5-year period for which complete data are available. The harvest
information in Table 2 provides an insight into the level of polar bear
harvest by western Alaska communities during the previous 5-year period
of Chukchi Sea ITRs. Average polar bear harvest levels in Alaska have
remained relatively stable over the past 20 years in the Southern
Beaufort Sea, but have declined in the Chukchi/Bering seas. Over these
past 20 years, six communities (Barrow, Point Hope, Savoonga, Gambell,
Little Diomede, and Wainwright) consistently account for the majority
of all polar bears harvested in Alaska. The reason for the decline in
harvest in western Alaska is unknown, but could be a result of reduced
hunter effort, changing distribution of bears, and/or a decline in the
number of bears in the population.
Polar bears are harvested throughout the calendar year, depending
on availability. Hunters in western Alaska, from Point Lay to St.
Lawrence Island, usually harvest bears in winter, since bears moving
southward with the advancing pack ice are more available in those areas
later in the season. The number of polar bears harvested from Barrow is
thought to be influenced by sea ice conditions as well as the number of
people engaged in subsistence activities. Most polar bear harvests
reported by Barrow occurred in February and March. Polar bears are
harvested from Wainwright throughout much of the year, with peak
harvests reported in May and December within 10 miles of the community.
Polar bears are typically harvested from Point Hope from January to
April within 10 miles of the community; however, Point Hope hunters
reported taking polar bears as far away as Cape Thompson and Cape
Lisburne.
Although few people are thought to hunt specifically for polar
bears, those that do hunt primarily between October and March. Polar
bears are often harvested coincidentally with beluga and bowhead whale
harvests. Hunting
[[Page 35380]]
areas for polar bears overlap strongly with areas of bowhead
subsistence hunting, particularly the area from Point Barrow South to
Walakpa Lagoon where walrus and whale carcasses are known to
concentrate polar bears.
Harvest Management of Polar Bears in Alaska
The Service works through existing co-management agreements with
Alaska Natives to address future actions that affect polar bears and
polar bear hunting. This includes working with the Alaska Nanuuq
Commission (ANC), the NSB and its Native-to-Native Agreement with the
Inuvialuit Game Council of Canada (Beaufort Sea region), and the Joint
Commission formed with the Russian Federation under the Bilateral
Agreement (Chukchi/Bering seas region).
The ANC was formed in 1994, to represent the villages in North and
Northwest Alaska on matters concerning the conservation and sustainable
subsistence use of the polar bear. The mission of ANC is to ``conserve
Nanuuq and the Arctic ecosystem for present and future generations of
Arctic Alaska Natives.'' The tribal council of each member village has
passed a resolution to become a member and to authorize the ANC to
represent them on matters concerning the polar bear at regional and
international levels. Fifteen villages are currently members: Barrow;
Wainwright; Kotzebue; Nuiqsut; Savoonga; Kaktovik; Point Lay; Point
Hope; Brevig Mission; Shishmaref; Gambell; King Island; Wales; Little
Diomede; and Kivalina.
Polar bears harvested from the communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut,
Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Atqasuk are currently considered part of the
SBS stock and thus are subject to the terms of the Inuvialuit-Inupiat
Polar Bear Management Agreement (Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement).
The Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement establishes quotas and
recommendations concerning protection of denning females, family
groups, and methods of harvest. Adherence to the quota is voluntary in
the United States, and it has generally been followed since
implementation of the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement (Brower et al.
2002). Under the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement, quotas are recommended
by technical advisors based on estimates of population size and age
specific estimates of survival and recruitment. The current quota of 70
total bears per year was established in July 2010, and represents a
decrease from the previous quota of 80 total bears per year (Brower et
al. 2002). The quota is allocated to Canadian Inuvialuit and to Alaskan
Inupiat, with 35 bears each. The Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement and its
quotas are voluntary between the Inupiat and Inuvialuit, and are not
enforceable by any law or authority of the governments of the United
States or Canada.
The ``Agreement Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the
Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear
Population,'' signed in Washington, DC, on October 16, 2000 (the 2000
Agreement), provides legal protections for the population of polar
bears found in the Chukchi-Northern Bering Sea. The 2000 Agreement is
implemented in the United States through Title V of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and builds upon those
protections already provided to this population of polar bears through
the ``Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears,'' executed in Oslo,
Norway on November 13, 1973 (the 1973 Agreement), which was a
significant early step in the international conservation of polar
bears.
The 1973 Agreement is a multilateral treaty to which the United
States and Russia are parties with other polar bear range states:
Norway, Canada, and Denmark. While the 1973 Agreement provides
authority for the maintenance of a subsistence harvest of polar bears
and provides for habitat conservation, the 2000 Agreement specifically
establishes a common legal, scientific, and administrative framework
for the conservation and management of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear
population between the United States and Russia.
The 2000 Agreement requires the United States and the Russian
Federation to manage and conserve polar bears based on reliable science
and to provide for subsistence harvest by native peoples. The U.S.-
Russian Federation Polar Bear Commission (Commission), which functions
as the bilateral managing authority, consists of a Native and Federal
representative of each country. The Commission is advised by a 16-
member Scientific Working Group (SWG), including experts on ice
habitat, bear ecology and population dynamics, and traditional
ecological knowledge.
Meetings of the Commission have occurred yearly since 2009. At the
fourth meeting of the Commission, which took place from June 25 through
27, 2012, in Anchorage, Alaska, United States, the Commission, based on
the recommendation of the SWG, agreed that no change was necessary to
the sustainable harvest level identified in 2010. In 2012, the
Commission adopted a 5-year sustainable harvest level of 290 polar
bears with no more than one third to be female, with the requirements
that the 5-year sustainable harvest level be allocated over the 5-year
period using methods recognized by the SWG as biologically sound, and
that these methods include the identification of annual sustainable
harvest levels, for consideration by the Commission in setting annual
taking limits. This cooperative management regime for the subsistence
harvest of bears is key to both providing for the long term viability
of the population as well as addressing the social, cultural, and
subsistence interests of Alaska Natives and the native people of
Chukotka.
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
Industry activities can affect individual walruses and polar bears
in numerous ways. The petitioners in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the AOGA
Petition describe anticipated impacts for Incidental Take Regulations
for Oil and Gas Activities in the Chukchi Sea and Adjacent Lands in
2013 to 2018, January 31, 2012. Potential effects, detailed below, from
Industry activities could include: (1) Disturbance due to noise; (2)
physical obstructions; (3) human encounters; and (4) effects on prey.
A thorough discussion of the impacts of Industry activities in the
Chukchi Sea on marine mammals is found in the Chukchi Sea Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Environment/Environmental_Analysis/2007-026-Vol%20I.pdf and the
Chukchi Sea Final Supplemental EIS, Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and
Gas Lease Sale 193 at http://www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/BOEM-Regions/Alaska-Region/Environment/Environmental-Analysis/OCS-EIS/EA-BOEMRE-2011-041.aspx.
Pacific Walruses
Oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea region
include the operation of seismic survey vessels, drillships,
icebreakers, supply boats, fixed wing aircrafts, and helicopters. These
activities could disturb walruses. Walruses that are disturbed may
experience insufficient rest, increased stress and energy expenditure,
interference with feeding, and masking of communication. Cows with
calves that experience disturbance may alter their care of calves, such
as staying in
[[Page 35381]]
the water longer or nursing less frequently. Calves that experience
disturbance could spend an increased amount of time in the water,
affecting their thermoregulation. Prolonged or repeated disturbances
could potentially displace individuals or herds from preferred feeding
or resting areas. Disturbance events could cause walrus groups to
abandon land or ice haulouts.
The response of walruses to disturbance stimuli is highly variable.
Observations by walrus hunters and researchers suggest that males tend
to be more tolerant of disturbances than females and individuals tend
to react less than groups. Females with dependent calves are considered
the least tolerant of disturbances. Hearing sensitivity is assumed to
be within the 13 Hz and 1,200 Hz range of their own vocalizations.
Walrus hunters and researchers have noted that walruses tend to react
to the presence of humans and machines at greater distances from upwind
approaches than from downwind approaches, suggesting that odor is also
a stimulus for a flight response. The visual acuity of walruses is
thought to be less than for other species of pinnipeds (Kastelein et
al. 1993).
Walruses must periodically haul out onto ice or land to rest
between feeding bouts. Aerial surveys in the eastern Chukchi Sea found
that 80 to 96 percent of walruses were closely associated with sea ice
and that the number of walruses observed in open water decreased
significantly with distance from the pack ice. Under minimal or no ice
conditions, walruses either follow the ice out of the region, or
relocate to coastal haulouts where their foraging trips are usually
restricted to near shore habitats. However, in 2010 and 2011, more than
20,000 walruses hauled out near Point Lay and many traveled to the
Hanna Shoal area to feed, returning to Point Lay. Therefore, in
evaluating the potential impacts of exploration activities on walruses,
the presence or absence of pack ice serves as one indicator of whether
or not walruses are likely to be found in the area. In addition, if
walruses are using coastal haulouts near Point Lay, or farther north,
many walruses could be encountered in the water over or near Hannah
Shoal as well as between the haul out area and Hanna Shoal (Jay et al.
2012; Delarue et al. 2012). Activities occurring in or near sea ice
habitats or areas of high benthic productivity have the greatest
potential for affecting walruses. Activities occurring during the open-
water period away from known feeding areas are expected to affect
relatively small numbers of animals except as described above in
regards to walruses moving between coastal haulouts and offshore
feeding areas.
1. Disturbance From Noise
Noise generated by Industry activities, whether stationary or
mobile, has the potential to disturb walruses. Potential impacts of
Industry-generated noise include displacement from preferred foraging
areas, increased stress and energy expenditure, interference with
feeding, and masking of communications. Most impacts of Industry noise
on walruses are likely to be limited to a few groups or individuals
rather than the population due to their geographic range and seasonal
distribution within the geographic region. Reactions of marine mammals
to noise sources, particularly mobile sources such as marine vessels,
vary. Reactions depend on the individuals' prior exposure to the
disturbance source, their need or desire to be in the particular
habitat or area where they are exposed to the noise, and visual
presence of the disturbance sources.
Unobserved impacts to walruses due to aquatic and airborne noises
may occur, but cannot be estimated. Airborne noises have the greatest
potential to impact walruses occurring in large numbers at coastal
haulouts or on ice floes near Industry activities. However,
restrictions on aircraft altitude and offset distances, as well as the
25-mile coastal exclusion zone enacted by BOEM, adequately mitigate
this potential impact of Industry activities when walruses are on land.
A detailed discussion of noise disturbance in the marine environment
follows.
A. Stationary Sources
An exploratory drill rig is an example of a stationary source of
sounds, odors, and visual stimuli. In estimating impacts, it is
difficult to separate those stimuli. However, walruses appear to rely
primarily on auditory and olfactory senses, and then sight when
responding to potential predators or other stimuli (Kastelein et al.
1993). Industrial ambient noise associated with the drilling
operations, such as generators and other equipment, is expected.
Walruses may respond to sound sources by either avoidance or tolerance.
Typically, walruses will avoid a disturbance by moving away.
In one reported observation in 1989 by Shell Western E & P, Inc., a
single walrus actually entered the moon pool of a stationary drillship
several times during a drilling operation. A moon pool is the opening
to the sea on a drillship for a marine drill apparatus. The drill
apparatus protrudes from the ship through the moon pool to the sea
floor. Eventually, the walrus had to be removed from the ship for its
own safety. During the same time period, Shell Western E & P, Inc.,
also reported encountering multiple walruses close to their drillship
during offshore drilling operations in the Chukchi Sea.
B. Mobile Sources
Seismic operations are expected to add significant levels of noise
into the marine environment. Although the hearing sensitivity of
walruses is poorly known, source levels associated with Marine 3D and
2D seismic surveys are thought to be high enough to cause temporary
hearing loss in other pinniped species. Therefore, walruses found near
source levels within the 180-decibel (dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m)
ensonification zone described by Industry for seismic activities could
potentially suffer shifts in hearing thresholds and temporary hearing
loss. Ensonification zones are a proxy for the amount of sound or
seismic disturbance that would be considered to rise to the level of
biologically significant disturbance, i.e., Level B take. Seismic
survey vessels will be required to ramp up airguns slowly to allow
marine mammals the opportunity to move away from potentially injurious
sound sources. Marine mammal monitors will also be required to monitor
seismic safety zones and call for the power down or shutdown of airgun
arrays if any marine mammals are detected within the prescribed safety
zone.
Geotechnical seismic surveys and high resolution site clearance
seismic surveys are expected to occur primarily in open water
conditions, at a sufficient distance from the pack ice and large
concentrations of walruses to avoid most disturbances. Although most
walruses are expected to be closely associated with sea ice or coastal
haulouts during offshore exploration activities, animals may be
encountered in open water conditions. Walruses swimming in open water
would likely be able to detect seismic airgun pulses up to several
kilometers from a seismic source vessel. The most likely response of
walruses to noise generated by seismic surveys would be to move away
from the source of the disturbance. Because of the transitory nature of
the proposed seismic surveys, impacts to walruses exposed to seismic
survey operations are expected to be temporary in nature and have
little or no effects on survival or recruitment.
Although concentrations of walruses in open water environments are
[[Page 35382]]
expected to be low, groups of foraging or migrating animals transiting
through the area may be encountered. Adaptive mitigation measures
(e.g., avoidance distance guidelines, seismic airgun shutdowns) based
upon monitoring information will be implemented to mitigate potential
impacts to walrus groups feeding or traveling in offshore locations and
ensure that these impacts would be limited to small numbers of animals.
C. Vessel Traffic
Offshore drilling exploration activities are expected to occur
primarily in areas of open water some distance from the pack ice;
however, support vessels and/or aircraft may occasionally encounter
aggregations of walruses hauled out onto sea ice. The sight, sound, or
smell of humans and machines could potentially displace these animals
from ice haulouts. The reaction of walruses to vessel traffic is
dependent upon vessel type, distance, speed, and previous exposure to
disturbances. Generally, walruses react to vessels by leaving the area,
but we are aware of at least one occasion where an adult walrus used a
vessel as a haulout platform in 2009. Walruses in the water appear to
be less readily disturbed by vessels than walruses hauled out on land
or sea ice, and it appears that low frequency diesel engines cause less
of a disturbance than high frequency outboard engines. In addition,
walrus densities within their normal distribution are highest along the
edge of the pack ice, and Industry vessels typically avoid these areas.
Furthermore, barges and vessels associated with Industry activities
travel in open water and avoid large ice floes or land where walruses
will be found.
Monitoring programs associated with exploratory drilling operations
in the Chukchi Sea in 1989 and 1990 noted that 25 to 60 percent,
respectively, of walrus groups encountered in the pack ice during
icebreaking responded by ``escaping'' (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991).
Escape was not defined, but we assume that walruses escaped by
abandoning the ice and swimming away. Ice management operations are
expected to have the greatest potential for disturbances since these
operations typically require vessels to accelerate, reverse direction,
and turn rapidly, activities that maximize propeller cavitations and
resulting noise levels. Previous studies (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991)
suggest that icebreaking activities can displace some walrus groups up
to several miles away; however, most groups of walruses resting on the
ice showed little reaction when they were beyond 805 m (0.5 mi) from
the activity.
When walruses are present, underwater noise from any vessel traffic
in the Chukchi Sea may ``mask'' ordinary communication between
individuals and prevent them from locating each other. It may also
prevent walruses from using potential habitats in the Chukchi Sea and
may have the potential to impede movement. Vessel traffic will likely
increase if offshore Industry expands and may increase if warming
waters and seasonally reduced sea ice cover alter northern shipping
lanes.
Impacts associated with transiting support vessels and aircrafts
are likely to be widely distributed throughout the area. Therefore,
noise and disturbance from aircraft and vessel traffic associated with
exploration projects are expected to have localized, short-term
effects. Nevertheless, the potential for disturbance events resulting
in injuries, mortalities, or cow-calf separations is of concern. The
potential for injuries, though unlikely, is expected to increase with
the size of affected walrus aggregations. Adaptive mitigation measures
(e.g., distance restrictions, reduced vessel speeds) designed to
separate Industry activities from walrus aggregations at coastal
haulouts and in sea ice habitats are expected to reduce the potential
for animal injuries, mortalities, and cow-calf separations.
While drilling operations are expected to occur during open water
conditions, the dynamic movements of sea ice could transport walruses
hauled out on ice within range of drilling operations. Any potential
disturbance to walruses in this condition would be through ice
management practices, where ice management may displace walruses from
ice in order to prevent displacement of the drill rig. Mitigation
measures specified in an LOA may include: Requirements for ice
scouting; surveys for walruses and polar bears near active drilling
operations and ice breaking activities; requirements for marine mammal
observers onboard drillships and ice breakers; and operational
restrictions near walrus and polar bear aggregations. These measures
are expected to reduce the potential for interactions between walruses
and drilling operations.
Ice floes that threaten drilling operations may have to be
intercepted and moved with a vessel, and those floes could be occupied
by resting walruses. Observations by icebreaker operators suggest that
most walruses will abandon drifting ice floes long before they reach
drilling rigs and before ice management vessels need to intercept a
floe that has to be deflected or broken. Ice management activities that
cause walruses to flush from or abandon ice will be considered as
intentional takes by the Service. Given the observations from previous
operations (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991), we expect this to be a rare
event and involve only small numbers of animals. In addition, Industry
has developed an adaptive ice management procedure that requires case-
by-case approval by Service officials prior to managing ice occupied by
walruses. If ice threatening drilling operations is too large and thick
to be moved, drilling operations will be suspended, the well would be
capped, and the drill vessel would be moved until the ice passes. For
example, in 2012, ice management was required during a total of seven
days from 31 August to 13 September and was limited to nine discrete
isolated events, where ice was broken apart only two times at the
Burger A prospect. During the drilling season the drill ship had to be
moved off-site for 10 days due to encroachment of ice floes.
D. Aircraft Traffic
Aircraft overflights may disturb walruses. Reactions to aircraft
vary with range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as well as walrus
age, sex, and group size. Adult females, calves, and immature walruses
tend to be more sensitive to aircraft disturbance. Fixed wing aircraft
are less likely to elicit a response than are helicopters. Walruses are
particularly sensitive to changes in engine, propeller, or rotor noise
and are more likely to stampede when aircraft turn sharply while
accelerating or fly low overhead. Researchers conducting aerial surveys
for walruses in sea ice habitats have observed less reaction to fixed
wing aircraft above 457 m (1,500 ft) (Service unpubl. data). Although
the intensity of the reaction to noise is variable, walruses are
probably most susceptible to disturbance by fast-moving and low-flying
aircraft, with helicopters usually causing the strongest reactions.
2. Physical Obstructions
It is unlikely that walrus movements would be displaced by offshore
stationary facilities, such as an exploratory drill rig. Vessel traffic
could temporarily interrupt the movement of walruses, or displace some
animals when vessels pass through an area. This displacement would
probably have minimal or no effect on animals and would last no more
than a few hours.
[[Page 35383]]
3. Human Encounters
Human encounters with walruses could occur during Industry
operations. These types of encounters will most likely be associated
with support activities in the coastal environments near walrus coastal
haulouts. Disturbance events could result in trampling injuries or cow-
calf separations, both of which are potentially fatal. Calves and young
animals at the perimeter of the herds appear particularly vulnerable to
trampling injuries. Mortalities from trampling are most severe when
large numbers of walruses resting on land are disturbed and flee en
masse to the ocean. In 2007, more than 3,000 calves died along the
Chukotka coast due to stampedes caused by humans and polar bears. Since
then, mortalities in the Russian Federation and the United States have
been fewer than 700 per year. This type of disturbance from Industry
activity is considered highly unlikely. Areas where and when walrus
coastal haulouts form in the United States will be protected with
additional mitigation measures, such as activity exclusion zones,
airspace restrictions, and close monitoring.
4. Effect on Prey Species
Walruses feed primarily on immobile benthic invertebrates. The
effect of Industry activities on benthic invertebrates most likely
would be from oil discharged into the environment. Oil has the
potential to impact walrus prey species in a variety of ways including,
but not limited to, mortality due to smothering or toxicity,
perturbations in the composition of the benthic community, and altered
metabolic and growth rates. The low likelihood of an oil spill large
enough to affect prey populations (see analysis in the section titled
Potential Impacts of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears, Pacific Walrus subsection) indicates that
Industry activities will likely have limited effects on walruses
through effects on prey species.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on Walruses
Based on our review of the activities; existing operating
conditions and mitigation measures; information on the biology,
ecology, and habitat use patterns of walruses in the Chukchi Sea;
information on potential effects of oil and gas activities on walruses;
and the results of previous monitoring efforts associated with Industry
activity in the Chukchi as well as the Beaufort Sea, we conclude that,
while the incidental take (by harassment) of walruses is reasonably
likely to or reasonably expected to occur as a result of the
activities, the anticipated takes will be limited to minor behavioral
modifications due to temporary, nonlethal disturbances. These
behavioral changes are not outside the subspecies' normal range of
activity and are not reasonably expected to, or likely to, affect rates
of overall population recruitment or survival. Our review of the nature
and scope of the activities, when considered in light of the observed
impacts of past exploration activities by Industry, indicates that it
is unlikely that there will be any lethal take of walruses associated
with these activities or any impacts on survival or reproduction.
Polar Bears
In the Chukchi Sea, polar bears will have a limited presence during
the open-water season associated with Industry operations. This is
because most bears move with the ice to the northern portion of the
Chukchi Sea and distribute along the pack ice during this time, which
is outside of the geographic region of the final regulations.
Additionally, they are found more frequently along the Chukotka
coastline in the Russian Federation. This limits the probability of
major impacts on polar bears from offshore Industry activities in the
Alaskan portion of the Chukchi Sea. Although polar bears have been
observed in open water, miles from the ice edge or ice floes, this has
been a relatively rare occurrence.
Polar bears will be present in the region of activity in limited
numbers and, therefore, oil and gas activities could affect polar bears
in various ways during both offshore and onshore activities, through:
(1) Impacts from offshore activities; (2) impacts from onshore
activities; (3) impacts from human encounters; (4) effects on prey
species; and (5) effects on polar bear habitat are described below.
1. Offshore Activities
In the open-water season, Industry activities will be limited to
vessel-based exploration activities, such as exploratory drilling and
seismic surveys. These activities avoid ice floes and the multi-year
ice edge; however, they could contact a limited number of bears in open
water and on ice floes.
A. Vessel Activities
Vessel-based activities, including operational support vessels,
such as barges, supply vessels, oil spill response, and ice management
vessels, in the Chukchi Sea could affect polar bears in a number of
ways. Seismic ships, icebreakers, or the drilling rig may become
physical obstructions to polar bear movements, although these impacts
will be short-term and localized. Likewise, noise, sights, and smells
produced by exploration activities could disrupt their natural behavior
by repelling or attracting bears to human activities.
Polar bears are curious and tend to investigate novel sights,
smells, and noises. If bears are present, noise produced by offshore
activities could elicit several different responses in individual polar
bears. Noise may act as a deterrent to bears entering the area of
operation, or the noise could potentially attract curious bears.
In general, little is known about the potential for seismic survey
sounds to cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in polar
bears. Researchers have studied the hearing sensitivity of polar bears
to understand how noise can affect polar bears, but additional research
is necessary to understand the potential negative effects of noise
(Nachtigall et al. 2007; Owen and Bowles 2011). Available data suggest
that such effects, if they occur at all, would be limited to short
distances from the sound source and probably to projects involving
large airgun arrays. Polar bears swim predominantly with their heads
above the surface, where underwater noises are weak or undetectable,
and this behavior may naturally limit noise exposure to polar bears.
There is no evidence that airgun pulses can cause serious injury or
death to bears, even in the case of large airgun arrays.
Additionally, the planned monitoring and mitigation measures
include shutdowns of the airguns, which would reduce any such effects
that might otherwise occur if polar bears are observed in the
ensonification zones. Thus, it is doubtful that any single bear will be
exposed to strong underwater seismic sounds long enough for significant
disturbance, such as an auditory injury, to occur.
Though polar bears are known to be extremely curious and may
approach sounds and objects to investigate, they are also known to move
away from sources of noise and the sight of vessels, icebreakers,
aircraft, and helicopters. The effects of retreating from vessels or
aircraft may be minimal if the event is short and the animal is
otherwise unstressed. For example, retreating from an active icebreaker
may produce minimal effects for a healthy animal on a cool day;
however, on a warm spring or summer day, a short run may be
[[Page 35384]]
enough to overheat a well-insulated polar bear.
As already stated, polar bears spend the majority of their time on
pack ice during the open-water season in the Chukchi Sea or along the
Chukotka coast, which limits the potential of impacts from human and
Industry activities in the geographic region. In recent years, the
Chukchi Sea pack ice has receded over the Continental Shelf during the
open-water season. Although this poses potential foraging
ramifications, by its nature the exposed open water creates a barrier
between the majority of the ice-pack-bound bear population and human
activity occurring in open water, thereby limiting potential
disturbance.
Bears in water may be in a stressed state if found near Industry
sites. Researchers have recently documented that bears occasionally
swim long distances during the open-water period seeking either ice or
land. They suspect that the bears may not swim constantly, but find
solitary icebergs or remnants to haulout on and rest. The movement is
becoming more common, but highlights the ice-free environment that
bears are being increasingly exposed to that requires increased energy
demands. In one study (between 2004 through 2009), researchers noted
that 52 bears embarked on long-distance swim events. In addition, they
documented 50 swims that had an average length of 96 miles. They noted
that long-distance swim events are still uncommon, but 38 percent of
collared bears took at least one long-distance swim (Pagano et al.
2012).
The majority of vessels, such as seismic boats and barges,
associated with Industry activities travel in open water and avoid
large ice floes. Some, such as ice management vessels, operate in close
proximity to the ice edge and unconsolidated ice during open-water
activities. Vessel traffic could encounter an occasional bear swimming
in the open water. However, the most likely habitat where bears will be
encountered during the open-water season is on the pack ice edge or on
ice floes in open water. During baseline studies conducted in the
Chukchi Sea between 2008 and 2010, 14 of 16 polar bears encountered by
a research vessel were observed on the ice, while the remaining two
bears were observed in the water swimming (USFWS unpublished data).
If there is an encounter between a vessel and a polar bear, it will
most likely result in temporary behavioral disturbance only. In open
water, vessel traffic could result in short-term behavioral responses
to swimming polar bears through ambient noise produced by the vessels,
such as underwater propeller cavitation, or activities associated with
them, such as on-board machinery, where a bear will most likely swim
away from the vessel. Indeed, observations from monitoring programs
report that when bears are encountered in open water swimming, bears
have been observed retreating from the vessel as it passes (USFWS
unpublished data).
Polar bears could be encountered if a vessel is operating in ice or
near ice floes, where the response of bears on ice to vessels is
varied. Bears on ice have been observed retreating from vessels;
exhibiting few reactions, such as a cessation in activity or turning
their head to watch the vessel; and exhibiting no perceived reaction at
all to the vessel. Bears have also been observed approaching vessels in
the ice.
B. Aircraft
Routine, commercial aircraft traffic flying at high altitudes
(approximately 10,000 to 30,000 feet above ground level (AGL)) appears
to have little to no effect on polar bears; however, extensive or
repeated over-flights of fixed wing aircraft or helicopters could
disturb polar bears. A minimum altitude requirement of 1,500 feet for
aircraft associated with Industry activity will help mitigate
disturbance to polar bears. Behavioral reactions of polar bears are
expected to be limited to short-term changes in behavior that will have
no long-term impact on individuals and no identifiable impacts on the
polar bear population.
In summary, while offshore, open-water seismic exploration
activities could encounter polar bears in the Chukchi Sea during the
latter part of the operational period, it is unlikely that exploration
activities or other geophysical surveys during the open-water season
would result in more than temporary behavioral disturbance to polar
bears. Any disturbance would be visual and auditory in nature, and
likely limited to deflecting bears from their route. Seismic surveys
are unlikely to cause serious impacts to polar bears as they normally
swim with their heads above the surface, where noises produced
underwater are weak, and polar bears rarely dive below the surface. Ice
management activities in support of the drilling operation have the
greatest potential to disturb bears by flushing bears off ice floes
when moving ice out of the path of the drill rig.
Monitoring and mitigation measures required for open water,
offshore activities will include, but will not be limited to: (1) A
0.5-mile operational exclusion zone around polar bear(s) on land, ice,
or swimming; (2) marine mammal observers (MMOs) on board all vessels;
(3) requirements for ice scouting; (4) surveys for polar bears in the
vicinity of active operations and ice breaking activities; and (5)
operational restrictions near polar bear aggregations. We expect these
mitigation measures will further reduce the potential for interactions
between polar bears and offshore operations.
2. Onshore Activities
While no large exploratory programs, such as drilling or seismic
surveys, are currently being developed for onshore sites in the Chukchi
Sea geographic area, land-based support facilities, maintenance of the
Barrow Gas Fields, and onshore baseline studies may contact polar
bears. Bear-human interactions at onshore activities are expected to
occur mainly during the fall and ice-covered season when bears come
ashore to feed, den, or travel. Noise produced by Industry activities
during the open-water and ice-covered seasons could potentially result
in takes of polar bears at onshore sites. Noise disturbance could
originate from either stationary or mobile sources. Stationary sources
include support facilities. Mobile sources can include vehicle and
aircraft traffic in association with Industry activities, such as ice
road construction. The effects for these sources are described below.
A. Noise
Noise produced by onshore Industry activities could elicit several
different responses in polar bears. The noise may act as a deterrent to
bears entering the area, or the noise could potentially attract bears.
Noise attracting bears to Industry activities, especially activities in
the coastal or nearshore environment, could result in bear-human
interactions, which could result in unintentional harassment,
deterrence (under a separate authorization), or lethal take of the
bear. Unintentional harassment would most likely be infrequent, short-
term, and temporary by either attracting a curious bear to the noise or
causing a bear to move away. Deterrence by nonlethal harassment to move
a bear away from humans would be much less likely, infrequent, short-
term, and temporary. Lethal take of a polar bear from bear-human
interaction related to Industry activity is extremely unlikely
(discussed in the Analysis of Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry on
Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea).
During the ice-covered season, noise from onshore activities could
deter
[[Page 35385]]
females from denning in the surrounding area, given the appropriate
conditions, although a few polar bears have been known to den in
proximity to industrial activity. Only a minimal amount of denning by
polar bears has been recorded on the western coast of Alaska; however,
onshore activities could affect potential den habitat and den site
selection if they were located near facilities. However, with limited
onshore denning, Industry impacts to onshore denning are expected to be
minimal.
Known polar bear dens around the oil and gas activities are
monitored by the Service, when practicable. Only a small percentage of
the total active den locations are known in any year. Industry
routinely coordinates with the Service to determine the location of
Industry's activities relative to known dens and den habitat.
Implementation of mitigation measures, such as the one-mile operational
exclusion area around known dens or the temporary cessation of Industry
activities, will ensure that disturbance is minimized.
B. Aircraft
As with offshore activities, routine high altitude aircraft traffic
will likely have little to no effect on polar bears; however, extensive
or repeated low altitude over-flights of fixed wing aircraft for
monitoring purposes or helicopters used for re-supply of Industry
operations could disturb polar bears on shore. Behavioral reactions of
non-denning polar bears are expected to be limited to short-term
changes in behavior and would have no long-term impact on individuals
and no impacts on the polar bear population. Mitigation measures, such
as minimum flight elevations over polar bears or areas of concern and
flight restrictions around known polar bear dens, will be required, as
appropriate, to reduce the likelihood that bears are disturbed by
aircraft.
3. Human Encounters
While more polar bears transit through the coastal areas than
inland, we do not anticipate many bear-human interactions due to the
limited amount of human activity that has occurred on the western coast
of Alaska. Near-shore activities could potentially increase the rate of
bear-human interactions, which could result in increased incidents of
harassment of bears. Industry currently implements company policies,
implements interaction plans, and conducts employee training to reduce
and mitigate such encounters under the guidance of the Service. The
history of the effective application of interaction plans has shown
reduced interactions between polar bears and humans and no injuries or
deaths to humans since the implementation of incidental take
regulations.
Industry has developed and uses devices to aid in detecting polar
bears, including human bear monitors, remote cameras, motion and
infrared detection systems, and closed circuit TV systems. Industry
also takes steps to actively prevent bears from accessing facilities
using safety gates and fences. The types of detection and exclusion
systems are implemented on a case-by-case basis with guidance from the
Service.
Bear-human interactions will be mitigated through conditions in
LOAs, which require the applicant to develop a polar bear interaction
plan for each operation. These plans outline the steps the applicant
will take, such as garbage disposal, attractant management, and snow
management procedures, to minimize impacts to polar bears by reducing
the attraction of Industry activities to polar bears. Interaction plans
also outline the chain of command for responding to a polar bear
sighting.
4. Effect on Prey Species
Ringed seals are the primary prey of polar bears and bearded seals
are a secondary prey source. Both species are managed by the NMFS,
which will evaluate the potential impacts of oil and gas exploration
activities in the Chukchi Sea through their appropriate authorization
process and will identify appropriate mitigation measures for those
species, if a negligible impact finding is appropriate. Industry would
mainly have an effect on seals through the potential for industrial
noise disturbance and contamination (oil spills). The Service does not
expect prey availability to be significantly changed due to Industry
activities. Mitigation measures for pinnipeds required by BOEM and NMFS
will reduce the impact of Industry activities on ringed and bearded
seals. A detailed description of potential Industry effects on
pinnipeds in the Chukchi Sea can be found in the NMFS biological
opinion, ``Endangered Species Act--Section 7 Consultation, Biological
Opinion; Issuance of Incidental Harassment Authorization under section
101(a)(5)(a) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to Shell Offshore,
Inc. for Exploratory Drilling in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea in 2012''
(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/shell_chukchi_opinion.pdf).
5. Polar Bear Habitat
Industry activities could also have potential impacts to polar bear
habitat, which in some cases could lead to impacts to bears. The
Service analyzed the effects of Industry activities on three habitat
types important for polar bears. These are: (1) Sea ice, used for
feeding, breeding, denning, and movements; (2) barrier island habitat,
used for denning, refuge from human disturbance, and transit corridors;
and (3) terrestrial denning habitat for denning. Industry activities
may affect these described habitats as discussed below.
A. Sea Ice Habitat
The regulations only allow exploratory oil and gas activities to
occur during the open-water season. However, support activities can
occur throughout the year and may interact with sea ice habitat on a
limited basis. Ice reconnaissance flights to survey ice characteristics
and ice management operations using vessels to deflect ice floes from
drill rigs are two types of activities that have the potential to
affect sea ice. Support activities outside of the open-water season
will be limited in scope and would likely have limited effects on sea
ice habitat during the ice-covered seasons within the timeframe of
these final regulations (2013 to 2018).
B. Barrier Island Habitat
Proposed support activities near communities, such as Wainwright
and Point Lay, for seismic, shallow hazard surveys; open-water marine
survey; or terrestrial environmental studies are the types of
exploration activities requested that may affect polar bear barrier
island habitat. Vessels associated with marine activities operating in
the Chukchi Sea may use barrier island habitat to ``wait out a storm.''
Bears using the islands to rest and travel may encounter temporarily
beached vessels. Past observations reported to the Service indicate
that bears will walk by such vessels, but may not rest near them. This
is a temporary effect associated with the beached vessel, and once the
vessel is removed from the beach, the bears return to travelling or
resting on the beach.
Aerial transport activities in support of Industry programs may
also encounter barrier island habitat while transiting to and from
communities. Air operations will have regulatory flight restrictions,
but in certain circumstances, such as emergencies, flights could
displace bears from barrier island habitat. Established mitigation
measures described in these final regulations, such as minimum altitude
restrictions, wildlife observers and adherence to company polar bear
interaction plans, will further limit potential disturbances.
[[Page 35386]]
C. Terrestrial Denning Habitat
In western Alaska, mainland support facilities for offshore
activities may occur within coastal polar bear habitat. Staging
activities, remote camps, construction of ice roads, and aerial
transport to support projects all have the potential to occur in
coastal areas in or near denning habitat. If necessary, proactive and
reactive mitigation measures set forth in these final regulations will
minimize disturbance impacts to denning habitat. The Service may
require den detection surveys in areas of denning habitat. At times,
Industry may have to place ice roads or staging activities in coastal
denning areas. Mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts
include establishment of the 1-mile exclusion zone around known
maternal dens, and the reduction of activity levels until the natural
departure of the bears. Currently, what little is known about the
denning habits of the Chukchi-Bering Sea population suggests that the
majority of maternal dens occur in the Russian Federation,
predominantly on Wrangel Island (DeBruyn et al. 2010). While denning
habitat exists in western Alaska, few confirmed polar bear dens have
been recorded in western Alaska since 2006 (Durner et al. 2010). A more
detailed description of den detection techniques required by the
Service and employed by exploration activities to limit disturbance and
minimize impacts to maternal polar bear den sites has been discussed in
the Service's Beaufort Sea regulations (76 FR 47010; August 3, 2011).
The Service will implement these techniques if active polar bear dens
are recorded during Industry activities.
Although Industry activities may temporarily reduce site-specific
availability of small portions of polar bear habitat for feeding,
mating, movements, denning, and access to prey, these actions will be
temporary and not result in long-term effects on the habitat's
capabilities to support biological functions of polar bears. Based on
the information provided by the petitioners, the Service concludes that
effects from Industry activity on polar bear habitat will be
insignificant, due to the limited magnitude and the temporary nature of
the activities.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on Polar Bears
The Service anticipates that potential impacts of seismic noise,
physical obstructions, human encounters, changes in distribution or
numbers of prey species in the offshore and onshore environments on
polar bears will be limited to short-term changes in behavior that will
have no long-term impact on individuals or identifiable impacts to the
polar bear population during the 5-year timeframe of these regulations.
Individual polar bears may be observed in the open water during
offshore activities in Alaska waters, but the vast majority of the bear
populations will be found on the pack ice or along the Chukotka
coastline in the Russian Federation during this time of year. Onshore
encounters with polar bears are expected to be minimal due to the
limited activity planned along the coastline of Alaska during the
timeframe of the regulations. We do not anticipate any lethal take due
to Industry activities during the 5-year time period of these
regulations. We expect that specific mitigation measures, such as
education of Industry personnel, will minimize bear-human interactions
that could lead to lethal take of polar bears. Our experience in the
Beaufort Sea similarly suggests that it is unlikely there will be any
lethal take of bears due to Industry activity within the 5-year time
period of these regulations.
Potential impacts to bears will be mitigated through various
requirements stipulated within LOAs. Mitigation measures that will be
required for all projects include a polar bear interaction plan and a
record of communication with affected villages that may serve as the
precursor to a POC with the village to mitigate effects of the project
on subsistence activities. Examples of mitigation measures that will be
used on a case-by-case basis include: The use of trained marine mammal
observers associated with offshore activities; bear monitors for
onshore activities; and seismic shutdown procedures in ensonification
zones. The Service implements an adaptive management approach where
certain mitigation measures are based on need and effectiveness for
specific activities based largely on timing and location. For example,
the Service will implement different mitigation measures for an onshore
baseline study 20 miles inland, than for an offshore drilling project.
Based on past monitoring information, bears are more prevalent in the
coastal areas than 20 miles inland. Therefore, the monitoring and
mitigation measures that the Service deems appropriate must be
implemented to limit the disturbance to bears, and the measures deemed
necessary to limit bear-human interactions may differ depending on
location and the timing of the activity.
Furthermore, mitigation measures imposed through BOEM/BSEE lease
stipulations are designed to avoid Level A harassment (injury), reduce
Level B harassment, reduce the potential for population level
significant adverse effects on polar bears, and avoid an unmitigable
adverse impact on their availability for subsistence purposes.
Additional measures described in the these ITRs help reduce the level
of Industry impacts to polar bears during the exploration activities,
and the issuance of LOAs with site specific operating restrictions and
monitoring requirements provide mitigation and protection for polar
bears. Therefore, we conclude that the exploration activities, as
mitigated through the regulatory process, will only impact small
numbers of animals, are not expected to have more than negligible
impacts on polar bears in the Chukchi Sea, and will not have an
unmitigable, adverse impact on the availability of polar bears for
subsistence uses.
Potential Impacts of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
In this section, we discuss the potential effects of oil spills
from Industry activities on Pacific walruses and polar bears. We
recognize that a wide range of potential effects from oil spills on
these species could occur, from minimal effects to potentially
substantial ones. We emphasize, however, that the only types of spills
that could have significant effects on these species are large spills.
Based on projections from BOEM/BSEE, the likelihood of large spills
from Industry exploration activities are extremely remote, and thus, we
consider impacts from such spills to be highly unlikely. Nevertheless,
we provide a full discussion of oil spill risks and possible effects
from oil spills, in the extremely unlikely event that such a spill
could occur.
Effects of Waste Discharge and Potential Oil Spills on Pacific Walrus
The possibility of oil and waste product spills from Industry
exploration activities and the subsequent impacts on walruses are a
concern. Little is known about the effects of either on walruses as no
studies have been conducted and no documented spills have occurred
affecting walruses in their habitat. Depending on the extent of an oil
spill, adult walruses may not be severely affected through direct
contact, but they will be extremely sensitive to any disturbances
created by spill response activities. In addition, due to the
gregarious nature of walruses, a release of contaminants will most
likely affect multiple individuals if it occurred in an area occupied
by walruses. Walruses may repeatedly expose themselves to waste or oil
that has accumulated at the
[[Page 35387]]
edge of a shoreline or ice lead as they enter and exit the water.
Damage to the skin of pinnipeds can occur from contact with oil
because some of the oil penetrates into the skin, causing inflammation
and death of some tissue. The dead tissue is discarded, leaving behind
an ulcer. While these skin lesions have only rarely been found on oiled
seals, the effects on walruses may be greater because of a lack of hair
to protect the skin. Like other pinnipeds, walruses are susceptible to
oil contamination in their eyes. Direct exposure to oil could also
result in conjunctivitis. Continuous exposure to oil would quickly
cause permanent eye damage.
Inhalation of hydrocarbon fumes presents another threat to marine
mammals. In studies conducted on pinnipeds, pulmonary hemorrhage,
inflammation, congestion, and nerve damage resulted after exposure to
concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a period of 24 hours. If the
walruses were also under stress from molting, pregnancy, etc., the
increased heart rate associated with the stress would circulate the
hydrocarbons more quickly, lowering the tolerance threshold for
ingestion or inhalation.
Adult and sub-adult walruses have thick skin and blubber layers for
insulation and very little hair. Thus, they exhibit no grooming
behavior, which lessens their chance of ingesting oil. Heat loss is
regulated by control of peripheral blood flow through the animal's skin
and blubber. Direct exposure of adult walruses to oil is not believed
to have any effect on the insulating capacity of their skin and
blubber, although it is unknown if oil could affect their peripheral
blood flow.
Walrus calves are also likely to suffer from the effects of oil
contamination. Walrus calves can swim almost immediately after birth
and will often join their mother in the water, increasing their risk of
being oiled. However, calves have not yet developed enough insulating
blubber to spend as much time in the water as adults. It is possible
that oiled walrus calves may not be able to regulate heat loss and may
be more susceptible to hypothermia. Another possibility is an oiled
calf that is unable to swim away from the contamination and a cow that
would not leave without the calf, resulting in the potential exposure
of both animals. However, it is also possible that an oiled calf would
be unrecognizable to its mother either by sight or by smell, and be
abandoned.
Walruses are benthic feeders, and the fate of benthic prey
contaminated by an oil spill is difficult to predict. In general,
benthic invertebrates preferred by walruses (bivalves, gastropods, and
polychaetes) may either decline or increase as the result of a spill
(Sanders et al. 1980; Jacobs 1980; Elmgren et al. 1983; Jewett et al.
1999). Impacts vary among spills and species within a spill, but in
general, benthic communities move through several successive stages of
temporal change until the communities approach pre-disturbance
conditions (Dauvin 1998), which may take 20 years. Much of the benthic
prey contaminated by an oil spill or gas release, such as methane, may
be killed immediately. Bivalve mollusks, a favorite prey species of the
walrus, are not effective at processing hydrocarbon compounds,
resulting in highly concentrated accumulations and long-term retention
of the contamination within the organism. In addition, because walruses
feed primarily on mollusks, they may be highly vulnerable to a loss of
this prey species. However, epifaunal bivalves were one of the benthic
community classes that increased following the Exxon Valdez spill in
Alaska (Jewett et al. 1999).
Depending on the location and timing, oil spills could affect
walruses in a number of ways. An offshore spill during open water may
only affect a few walruses swimming through the affected area. However,
spilled oil present along ice edges and ice leads in fall or spring
during formation or breakup of ice presents a greater risk because of
both the difficulties associated with cleaning oil in mixed, broken
ice, and the presence of wildlife in prime feeding areas over the
continental shelf during this period. Oil spills affecting areas where
walruses and polar bears are concentrated, such as along off-shore
leads, polynyas, preferred feeding areas, and terrestrial habitat used
for denning or haulouts would affect more animals than spills in other
areas.
The potential impacts to Pacific walruses from a spill could be
significant, particularly if subsequent cleanup efforts are
ineffective. These potential impacts would be greatest when walruses
are aggregated at coastal haulouts. For example, walruses would be most
vulnerable to the effects of an oil spill at coastal haulouts if the
oil comes within 60 km of the coast (Garlich-Miller et al. 2010, p.
87). Spilled oil during the ice-covered season not cleaned up could
become part of the ice substrate and be eventually released back into
the environment during the following open-water season. During spring
melt, oil would be collected by spill response activities, but it could
eventually contact a limited number of walruses.
In the unlikely event there is an oil spill and walruses are in the
same area, mitigation measures, especially those to deflect and deter
animals from spilled areas, may minimize the associated risks. Fueling
crews have personnel that are trained to handle operational spills and
contain them. If a small offshore spill occurs, spill response vessels
are stationed in close proximity and are required to respond
immediately. A detailed discussion of oil spill prevention and response
for walruses can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fws.gov/Contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/FWSContingencyTOC.htm.
Although fuel and oil spills have the potential to cause adverse
impacts to walruses and possibly some prey species, operational spills
associated with the exploration activities are not considered a major
threat. Operational spills would likely be of a relatively small
volume, and occur in areas of open water where walrus densities are
expected to be low. Furthermore, blowout prevention technology will be
required for all exploratory drilling operations in the Chukchi Sea by
the permitting agencies, and the BOEM/BSEE considers the likelihood of
a blowout occurring during exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea as
negligible (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026). The BOEM/BSEE operating
stipulations, including oil spill prevention and response plans, reduce
both the risk and scale of potential spills. For these reasons, any
impacts associated with an operational spill are expected to be limited
to a small number of animals.
Effects of Waste Discharge and Potential Oil Spills on Polar Bear
Individual polar bears can potentially be affected by Industry
activities through waste product discharge and oil spills. In 1980,
Canadian scientists performed experiments that studied the effects to
polar bears of exposure to oil. Effects on experimentally oiled polar
bears (where bears were forced to remain in oil for prolonged periods)
included acute inflammation of the nasal passages, marked epidermal
responses, anemia, anorexia, and biochemical changes indicative of
stress, renal impairment, and death. Many effects did not become
evident until several weeks after the experiment ([Oslash]ritsland et
al. 1981).
Oiling of the pelt causes significant thermoregulatory problems by
reducing the insulation value. Irritation or damage to the skin by oil
may further contribute to impaired thermoregulation. Experiments on
live polar bears and pelts showed that the
[[Page 35388]]
thermal value of the fur decreased significantly after oiling, and
oiled bears showed increased metabolic rates and elevated skin
temperature. Oiled bears are also likely to ingest oil as they groom to
restore the insulation value of the oiled fur.
Oil ingestion by polar bears through consumption of contaminated
prey, and by grooming or nursing, could have pathological effects,
depending on the amount of oil ingested and the individual's
physiological state. Death could occur if a large amount of oil is
ingested or if volatile components of oil were aspirated into the
lungs. Indeed, two of three bears died in the Canadian experiment, and
it was suspected that the ingestion of oil was a contributing factor to
the deaths. Experimentally oiled bears ingested much oil through
grooming. Much of it was eliminated by vomiting and in the feces; some
was absorbed and later found in body fluids and tissues.
Ingestion of sub-lethal amounts of oil can have various
physiological effects on a polar bear, depending on whether the animal
is able to excrete or detoxify the hydrocarbons. Petroleum hydrocarbons
irritate or destroy epithelial cells lining the stomach and intestine,
thereby affecting motility, digestion, and absorption.
Polar bears swimming in, or walking adjacent to, an oil spill could
inhale petroleum vapors. Vapor inhalation by polar bears could result
in damage to various systems, such as the respiratory and the central
nervous systems, depending on the amount of exposure.
Oil may also affect food sources of polar bears. Seals that die
because of an oil spill could be scavenged by polar bears. This would
increase exposure of the bears to hydrocarbons and could result in
lethal impact or reduced survival to individual bears. A local
reduction in ringed seal numbers because of direct or indirect effects
of oil could temporarily affect the local distribution of polar bears.
A reduction in density of seals as a direct result of mortality from
contact with spilled oil could result in polar bears not using a
particular area for hunting. Possible impacts from the loss of a food
source could reduce recruitment and/or survival.
The persistence of toxic subsurface oil and chronic exposures, even
at sub-lethal levels, can have long-term effects on wildlife (Peterson
et al. 2003). Although it may be true that small numbers of bears may
be affected by an oil spill initially, the long-term impact could be
much greater. Long-term oil effects could be substantial through
interactions between natural environmental stressors and compromised
health of exposed animals, and through chronic, toxic exposure because
of bioaccumulation. Polar bears are biological sinks for pollutants
because they are the apical predator of the Arctic ecosystem and are
opportunistic scavengers of other marine mammals. Additionally, their
diet is composed mostly of high-fat sealskin and blubber (Norstrom et
al. 1988). The highest concentrations of persistent organic pollutants
in Arctic marine mammals have been found in polar bears and seal-eating
walruses near Svalbard (Norstrom et al. 1988; Andersen et al. 2001;
Muir et al. 1999). As such, polar bears would be susceptible to the
effects of bioaccumulation of contaminants associated with spilled oil,
which could affect the bears' reproduction, survival, and immune
systems. Sub-lethal, chronic effects of any oil spill may further
suppress the recovery of polar bear populations due to reduced fitness
of surviving animals.
In addition, subadult polar bears are more vulnerable than adults
are to environmental effects (Taylor et al. 1987). Subadult polar bears
would be most prone to the lethal and sub-lethal effects of an oil
spill due to their proclivity for scavenging (thus increasing their
exposure to oiled marine mammals) and their inexperience in hunting.
Indeed, grizzly bear researchers in Katmai National Park suspected that
oil ingestion contributed to the death of two yearling grizzly bears in
1989, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. They detected levels of
naphthalene and phenathrene in the bile of one of the bears. Because of
the greater maternal investment a weaned subadult represents, reduced
survival rates of subadult polar bears have a greater impact on
population growth rate and sustainable harvest than reduced litter
production rates (Taylor et al. 1987).
During the open-water season (July to October), bears in the open
water or on land may encounter and be affected by any such oil spill;
however, given the seasonal nature of the Industry activities, the
potential for direct negative impacts to polar bears would be
minimized. During the ice-covered season (November to May), onshore
Industry activities will have the greatest likelihood of exposing
transiting polar bears to potential oil spills. Although the majority
of the Chukchi Sea polar bear population spends a large amount of time
offshore on the annual or multi-year pack ice and along the Chukotka
coastline, some bears could encounter oil from a spill regardless of
the season and location.
Small spills of oil or waste products throughout the year by
Industry activities on land could potentially affect small numbers of
bears. The effects of fouling fur or ingesting oil or wastes, depending
on the amount of oil or wastes involved, could be short-term or result
in death. For example, in April 1988, a dead polar bear was found on
Leavitt Island, in the Beaufort Sea, approximately 9.3 km (5 nautical
miles) northeast of Oliktok Point. The cause of death was determined to
be poisoning by a mixture that included ethylene glycol and Rhodamine B
dye. While industrial in origin, the source of the mixture was unknown.
The major concern regarding large oil spills is the impact a spill
would have on the survival and recruitment of the Chukchi Sea and
southern Beaufort Sea polar bear populations that use the region.
Currently, the Southern Beaufort Seas bear population is approximately
1,500 bears, and the Chukchi Sea bear population estimate is 2,000.
These populations may be able to sustain the additional mortality
caused by a large oil spill if a small number of bears are killed;
however, the additive effect of numerous bear deaths due to the direct
or indirect effects from a large oil spill are more likely to reduce
population recruitment and survival. Indirect effects may occur through
a local reduction in seal productivity or scavenging of oiled seal
carcasses and other potential impacts, both natural and human-induced.
The removal of a large number of bears from either population would
exceed sustainable levels, potentially causing a decline in bear
populations and affecting bear productivity and subsistence use.
The time of greatest impact from an oil spill to polar bears is
most likely during the ice-covered season when bears use the ice. To
access ringed and bearded seals, polar bears concentrate in shallow
waters less that 300 m deep over the continental shelf and in areas
with greater than 50 percent ice cover (Durner et al. 2004). At this
time, bears may be exposed to any remnant oil from the previous open-
water season. Spilled oil also can concentrate and accumulate in leads
and openings that occur during spring break-up and autumn freeze-up
periods. Such a concentration of spilled oil would increase the chance
that polar bears and their principal prey would be oiled.
Potential impacts of Industry waste products and oil spills suggest
that individual bears could be impacted by this type of disturbance
were it to occur. Depending on the amount of oil or
[[Page 35389]]
wastes involved, and the timing and location of a spill, impacts could
be short-term, chronic, or lethal. In order for bear population
reproduction or survival to be impacted, a large-volume oil spill would
have to take place. According to BOEM/BSEE, during exploratory
activities, the probability of a large oil spill (defined as
= 1,000 barrels [bbls]) occurring throughout the duration of
these regulations (5 years) is very small. In addition, protocols for
controlling waste products in project permits will limit exposure of
bears to the waste products. Current management practices by Industry,
such as requiring the proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous
materials, minimize the potential occurrence of such incidents. In the
event of an oil spill, it is also likely that polar bears would be
intentionally hazed to keep them away from the area, further reducing
the likelihood of affecting the population. Oil spill contingency plans
are authorized by project permitting agencies and, if necessary, would
limit the exposure of bears to oil.
Description of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills
Waste products are substances that can be accidently introduced
into the environment by Industry activities. Examples include ethyl
glycol, drilling muds, or treated water. Generally, they are released
in small amounts. Oil spills are releases of oil or petroleum products.
In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit Program, all oil companies must submit an oil spill contingency
plan with their projects. It is illegal to discharge oil into the
environment, and a reporting system requires operators to report even
small spills. BOEM/BSEE classifies oil spills as either small (< 1,000
bbls) or large (= 1,000 bbls). A volume of oil of 1,000 bbls
equals 42,000 U.S. gallons (gal), or 158,987 liters (L). Reported small
spills are those that have occurred during standard Industry
operations. Examples include oil, gas, or hydraulic fluid spills from
mechanized equipment or spills from pipelines or facilities. While oil
spills are unplanned events, large spills are associated with oil
platforms, such as drill rigs or pads and pipelines. There is generally
some form of human error combined with faulty equipment, such as
pipeline degradation, that causes a large spill.
Most regional oil spill information comes from the Beaufort Sea
area, where oil and gas production has already been established. BOEM's
most current data suggest that between 1977 and 1999, an average of 70
oil and 234 waste product spills occurred annually on the North Slope
oil fields in the terrestrial and marine environment. Although most
spills have been small (less than 50 bbls, 2,100 gal, or 7,950 L) by
Industry standards, larger spills accounted for much of the annual
volume. Historically, Industry has had 35 small spills totaling 26.7
bbls (1,121 gal, 4,245 L) in the OCS. Of the 26.7 bbls spilled,
approximately 24 bbls (1,008 gal, 3,816 L) were recovered or cleaned
up. Seven large, terrestrial oil spills occurred between 1985 and 2009
on the Beaufort Sea North Slope. The largest oil spill occurred in the
spring of 2006, where approximately 5,714 bbls (260,000 gal, 908,500 L)
leaked from flow lines near a gathering center. In November 2009, a
1,095 bbls (46,000 gal, 174,129 L) oil spill occurred as well. Both of
these spills occurred at production sites. More recently, in 2012, a
gas blowout occurred at an exploration well on the Colville River Delta
where approximately 1,000 bbls (42,000 gal, 159,987 L) of drilling mud
and an unknown amount of natural gas was expelled. These spills were
terrestrial and posed minimal threat to polar bears and walruses.
For exploratory operations, according to BOEM/BSEE, Industry has
drilled 35 offshore exploratory wells, five of which occurred in the
Chukchi Sea prior to 1992. To date, no major exploratory offshore-
related oil spills have occurred on the North Slope in either the
Beaufort or Chukchi seas.
Historical large spills (= 1,000 bbls, 42,000 gal, or
159,987 L) associated with Alaskan oil and gas activities on the North
Slope have been production-related, and have occurred at production
facilities or pipelines connecting wells to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System. The BOEM/BSEE estimates the chance of a large (=
1,000 bbls, 42,000 gal, or 159,987 L) oil spill from exploratory
activities in the Chukchi Sea to be low based on the types of spills
recorded in the Beaufort Sea. The greatest risk potential for oil
spills from exploration activities likely occurs with the marine
vessels. From past experiences, BOEM/BSEE believes these would most
likely be localized and relatively small. Spills in the offshore or
onshore environments classified as small could occur during normal
operations (e.g., transfer of fuel, handling of lubricants and liquid
products, and general maintenance of equipment). The likelihood of
small spills occurring is higher than large spills. However, because
small spills would likely be contained and remediated quickly, their
potential impacts on walruses and polar bears are expected to be low.
There is a greater potential for large spills in the Chukchi Sea region
from drilling platforms. Exploratory drilling platforms are required to
have containment ability in case of a blowout as part of their oil
spill contingency plans, where the likelihood of a large release during
the 5-year timeframe of these regulations remains minimal.
Our analysis of oil and gas development potential and subsequent
risks was based on the BOEM/BSEE analysis that they conducted for the
Chukchi Sea lease sale (MMS 2007 and BOEMRE 2011), which is the best
available information. Due to the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) incident in
the Gulf of Mexico, offshore oil and gas activities are under increased
scrutiny. As such, BOEM/BSEE developed a very large oil spill analysis
(BOEMRE 2011-041; http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Environment/Environmental_Analysis/2011-041v1.pdf), where the potential impacts of a very large oil spill to
polar bears and Pacific walruses are described (sections IV.E.8 and
IV.E.11, respectively).
Of the potential impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears from
Industry activity in the Chukchi Sea, the impacts from a very large oil
spill is of the most concern during the duration of these regulations.
Though not part of standard operating conditions, we have addressed the
analysis of a very large oil spill due to the potential that a spill of
this magnitude could significantly impact Pacific walruses and polar
bears. During the next 5 years, offshore exploratory drilling would be
the predominant source of a very large oil spill in the unlikely event
one occurred.
Multiple factors have been examined to compare and contrast an oil
spill in the Arctic to that of Deepwater Horizon. In the event of a
spill in the Chukchi Sea, factors that could limit the impact of a
spill could include the drilling depth and the well pressures. The
Deepwater Horizon blowout occurred in 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of water with
well pressures of approximately 15,000 psi (approximately 103,421 kPa).
(Schmidt 2012). The Chukchi Sea sites are calculated to have drilling
depths of approximately 150 ft (46 m) and well pressures not to exceed
3,000 to 4,000 psi (approximately 20,684 to 27,579 kPa). With lower
drilling depths and well pressures, well sites in the Chukchi Sea will
be more accessible in the event of a spill. However, spill response and
cleanup of an oil spill in the Arctic has not been fully vetted to the
point where major concerns no longer remain.
[[Page 35390]]
The BOEM/BSEE has acknowledged difficulties in effectively
responding to oil spills in broken ice conditions, and The National
Academy of Sciences has determined that ``no current cleanup methods
remove more than a small fraction of oil spilled in marine waters,
especially in the presence of broken ice'' (NRC 2003). Current oil
spill responses in the Chukchi Sea include three main response
mechanisms, blowout prevention, in-situ burning, and chemical
dispersants (http://www.bsee.gov/OSRP/Shell-Chukchi-OSRP.aspx). Each
response has associated strengths and weaknesses, where the success
would be mostly dependent on weather conditions. The BOEM/BSEE
advocates the use of non-mechanical methods of spill response, such as
in-situ burning, during periods when broken ice would hamper an
effective mechanical response (MMS 2008). An in-situ burn has the
potential to rapidly remove large quantities of oil and can be employed
when broken-ice conditions may preclude mechanical response. However,
oil spill cleanup in the broken ice and open water conditions that
characterize Arctic waters continues to be problematic.
In addition to the BOEM/BSEE analysis (BOEMRE 2011), policy and
management changes have occurred within the Department of the Interior
that are designed to increase the effectiveness of oversight activities
and further reduce the probability and effects of an accidental oil
spill (USDOI 2010). As a result, based on projections from BOEM/BSEE,
we anticipate that the potential for a significant oil spill will
remain low at the exploration stage; however, we recognize that should
a large spill occur, effective strategies for oil spill cleanup in the
broken ice and open-water conditions that characterize walrus and polar
bear habitat in the Chukchi Sea are limited.
In the event of a large oil spill, Service-approved response
strategies are in place to reduce the impact of a spill on walrus and
polar bear populations. Service response efforts will be conducted
under a 3-tier approach characterized as: (1) Primary response,
involving containment, dispersion, burning, or cleanup of oil; (2)
secondary response, involving hazing, herding, preventative capture/
relocation, or additional methods to remove or deter wildlife from
affected or potentially affected areas; and (3) tertiary response,
involving capture, cleaning, treatment, and release of wildlife. If the
decision is made to conduct response activities, primary and secondary
response options will be most applicable, as little evidence exists
that tertiary methods will be effective for cleaning oiled walruses or
polar bears.
In 2012, the Service and representatives from oil companies
operating in the Arctic conducted tests on polar bear fur to evaluate
appropriate oil cleaning techniques specific to oil grades extracted
from local Alaskan oil fields. The analysis is ongoing and will be
reported in the future. In addition, capturing and handling of adult
walruses is difficult and risky, as walruses do not react well to
anesthesia, and calves have little probability of survival in the wild
following capture and rehabilitation. In addition, many Alaska Native
organizations are opposed to releasing rehabilitated marine mammals
into the wild due to the potential for disease transmission.
All Industry projects will have project specific oil spill
contingency plans that will be approved by the appropriate permitting
agencies prior to the issuance of an LOA. The contingency plans have a
wildlife component, which outlines protocols to minimize wildlife
exposure, including exposure of polar bears and walruses, to oil
spills. Operators in the OCS are advised to review the Service's Oil
Spill Response Plan for Polar Bears in Alaska and the Pacific Walrus
Response Plan at http://www.fws.gov/Contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/FWSContingencyTOC.htm when developing spill-response tactics. Multiple
factors will be considered when responding to an oil spill, including:
the location of the spill; the magnitude of the spill; oil viscosity
and thickness; accessibility to spill site; spill trajectory; time of
year; weather conditions (i.e., wind, temperature, precipitation);
environmental conditions (i.e., presence and thickness of ice); number,
age, and sex of walruses and polar bears that are (or are likely to be)
affected; degree of contact; importance of affected habitat; cleanup
proposal; and likelihood of animal-human interactions.
As discussed above, large oil spills from Industry activities in
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas and coastal regions that would impact
walruses and polar bears have not yet occurred, although the
exploration of oil and gas has increased the potential for large
offshore oil spills. With limited background information available
regarding the effects of potential oil spills on the Arctic
environment, the outcome of such a spill is uncertain. For example, the
extent of impacts of a large oil spill as well as the types of
equipment needed and potential for effective cleanup would be greatly
influenced by seasonal weather and sea conditions, including
temperature, winds, wave action, and currents. Based on the experiences
of cleanup efforts following the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez oil
spills, where logistical support was readily available and wildlife
resources were nevertheless affected, spill response may be largely
unsuccessful in open-water conditions. Arctic conditions and the
remoteness of exploration activities would greatly complicate any spill
response.
While it is extremely unlikely that a significant amount of oil
would be discharged into the environment by an exploratory program
during the regulatory period, the Service is aware of the risk that
hydrocarbon exploration entails and that a large spill could occur in
the development and production of oil fields in the future, where
multiple operations incorporating pads and pipelines would increase the
possibility of oil spills and impacts to walruses and polar bears. The
Service will continue to work to minimize impacts to walruses and polar
bears from Industry activities, including reducing impacts of oil
spills.
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Subsistence
Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
The open-water season for oil and gas exploration activities
coincides with peak walrus hunting activities in the Chukchi Sea
region. The subsistence harvest of polar bears can occur year-round in
the Chukchi Sea, depending on ice conditions, with peaks usually
occurring in spring and fall. Effects to subsistence harvests will be
addressed in Industry POCs. The POCs are discussed in detail later in
this section.
Noise and disturbances associated with oil and gas exploration
activities have the potential to adversely impact subsistence harvests
of walruses and polar bears by displacing animals beyond the hunting
range (60 to 100 mi [96.5 to 161 km] from the coast) of these
communities. Disturbances associated with exploration activities could
also heighten the sensitivity of animals to humans with potential
impacts to hunting success. Little information is available to predict
the effects of exploration activities on the subsistence harvest of
walruses and polar bears. Hunting success varies considerably from year
to year because of variable ice and weather conditions. Changing walrus
distributions due to declining sea ice and accelerated sea ice melt are
currently affecting hunting opportunities.
Measures to mitigate potential effects of oil and gas exploration
activities on marine mammal resources and subsistence use of those
resources were
[[Page 35391]]
identified and developed through previous BOEM/BSEE Lease Sale National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) review and
analysis processes. The Final Lease Stipulations for the Oil and Gas
Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea identify several existing measures
designed to mitigate potential effects of oil and gas exploration
activities on marine mammal resources and subsistence use of those
resources (http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Leasing/Regional_Leasing/Alaska_Region/Alaska_Lease_Sales/Sale_193/Stips.pdf).
Seven lease stipulations were selected by the Secretary of the
Interior in the Final Notice of Sale for Lease 193. These are:
Stipulation (1) Protection of Biological Resources; Stipulation (2)
Orientation Program; Stipulation (3) Transportation of Hydrocarbons;
Stipulation (4) Industry Site Specific Monitoring Program for Marine
Mammal Subsistence Resources; Stipulation (5) Conflict Avoidance
Mechanisms to Protect Subsistence Whaling and Other Marine Mammal
Subsistence Harvesting Activities; Stipulation (6) Pre-Booming
Requirements for Fuel Transfers; and Stipulation (7) Measures to
Minimize Effects to Spectacled and Steller's Eiders during Exploration
Activities.
Lease stipulations that directly support minimizing impacts to
walruses, polar bears and the subsistence use of those animals include
Stipulations 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Stipulation 1 allows BOEM/BSEE to
require the lessee to conduct biological surveys for previously
unidentified biological populations or habitats to determine the extent
and composition of the population or habitat. Stipulation 2 requires
that an orientation program be developed by the lessee to inform
individuals working on the project of the importance of environmental,
social, and cultural resources, including how to avoid disturbing
marine mammals and endangered species. Stipulation 4 provides for site-
specific monitoring programs, which will provide information about the
seasonal distributions of walruses and polar bears. The information can
be used to improve evaluations of the threat of harm to the species and
provides immediate information about their activities, and their
response to specific events, where this stipulation applies
specifically to the communities of Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, and
Point Hope. This stipulation is expected to reduce the potential
effects of exploration activities on walruses, polar bears, and the
subsistence use of these resources. This stipulation also contributes
important information to ongoing walrus and polar bear research and
monitoring efforts.
Stipulation 5 will help reduce potential conflicts between
subsistence hunters and proposed oil and gas exploration activities.
This stipulation is meant to help reduce noise and disturbance
conflicts from oil and gas operations during specific periods, such as
peak hunting seasons. It requires that the lessee meet with local
communities and subsistence groups to resolve potential conflicts. The
consultations required by this stipulation ensure that the lessee,
including contractors, consult and coordinate both the timing and
sighting of events with subsistence users. The intent of these
consultations is to identify any potential conflicts between proposed
exploration activities and subsistence hunting opportunities in the
coastal communities. Where potential conflicts are identified, BOEM/
BSEE may require additional mitigation measures as identified by NMFS
and the Service through MMPA authorizations. Stipulation 6 will limit
the potential of fuel spill into the environment by requiring the fuel
barge to be surrounded by an oil spill containment boom during fuel
transfer.
While Stipulation 7 is intended to minimize effects to spectacled
and Steller's eiders during exploration activities, Condition a2b of
Stipulation 7 addresses vessel traffic in the Ledyard Bay Critical
Habitat Area and imposes vessel traffic restrictions in this area
between July 1 to November 15. These restrictions will also help
minimize impacts to walruses, where the Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat
Area and the high use areas of Pacific walruses overlap, for example
along the barrier islands and surrounding waters of the Point Lay
haulout.
The BOEM/BSEE lease sale stipulations and mitigation measures will
be applied to all exploration activities in the Chukchi Lease Sale
Planning Area and the geographic region of the ITRs. The Service has
incorporated these BOEM/BSEE lease sale stipulations into its analysis
of impacts to walruses and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea.
In addition to the existing BOEM/BSEE Final Lease Stipulations
described above, the Service has also developed additional mitigation
measures that will be implemented through these ITRs. These
stipulations are currently in place under our regulations published on
June 11, 2008 (73 FR 33212), and will also apply for these final
regulations. The following LOA stipulations, which will mitigate
potential impacts to subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting from the
activities, apply to all incidental take authorizations:
(1) Prior to receipt of an LOA, applicants must contact and consult
with the communities of Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow
through their local government organizations to identify any additional
measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts to subsistence hunters
in these communities. A POC will be developed if there is a general
concern from the community that the activities will impact subsistence
uses of walruses or polar bears. The POC must address how applicants
will work with the affected Native communities and what actions will be
taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of walruses and
polar bears. The Service will review the POC prior to issuance of the
LOA to ensure that applicants adequately address any concerns raised by
affected Native communities such that any potential adverse effects on
the availability of the animals are minimized.
(2) Authorization will not be issued by the Service for the take of
polar bears and walruses associated with activities in the marine
environment that occur within a 40-mile (64 km) radius of Barrow,
Wainwright, Point Hope, or Point Lay, unless expressly authorized by
these communities through consultations or through a POC. This
condition is intended to limit potential interactions between Industry
activities and subsistence hunting in near shore environments.
(3) Offshore exploration activities will be authorized only during
the open-water season, which will not exceed the period of July 1 to
November 30. This condition is intended to allow communities the
opportunity to participate in subsistence hunts without interference
and to minimize impacts to walruses during the spring migration.
Variances to this operating condition may be issued by the Service on a
case-by-case basis, based upon a review of seasonal ice conditions and
available information on walrus and polar bear distributions in the
area of interest.
(4) A 15-mile (24-km) separation must be maintained between all
active seismic survey source vessels and/or drill rigs during
exploration activities to mitigate cumulative impacts to resting,
feeding, and migrating walruses. This does not include support vessels.
Plan of Cooperation (POC)
As a condition of incidental take authorization, and to ensure that
Industry activities do not impact
[[Page 35392]]
subsistence opportunities for communities within the geographic region
covered by these final regulations, any applicant requesting an LOA is
required to present a record of communication that reflects discussions
with the Alaska Native communities most likely affected by the
activities. Prior to issuance of an LOA, Industry must provide evidence
to the Service that an adequate POC has been coordinated with any
affected subsistence community (or, as appropriate, with the EWC, the
ANC, and the NSB) if, after community consultations, Industry and the
community conclude that increased mitigation and monitoring is
necessary to minimize impacts to subsistence resources. Where relevant,
a POC will describe measures to be taken to mitigate potential
conflicts between the Industry activity and subsistence hunting. If
requested by Industry or the affected subsistence community, the
Service will provide guidance on the development of the POC. The
Service will review all POCs and will reject POCs that do not provide
adequate safeguards to ensure that any taking by Industry will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of polar bears and
walruses for taking for subsistence uses.
Included as part of the POC process and the overall State and
Federal permitting process of Industry activities, Industry engages the
Alaska Native communities in numerous informational meetings. During
these community meetings, Industry must ascertain if community
responses indicate that impact to subsistence uses will occur as a
result of activities in the requested LOA. If community concerns
suggest that Industry activities may have an impact on the subsistence
uses of these species, the POC must provide the procedures on how
Industry will work with the affected Native communities and what
actions will be taken to avoid interfering with the availability of
polar bears and walruses for subsistence harvest.
In making this finding, we considered the following: (1) Historical
data regarding the timing and location of harvests; (2) effectiveness
of mitigation measures stipulated by BOEM/BSEE-issued operational
permits; (3) Service regulations proposed to be codified at 50 CFR
18.118 for obtaining an LOA, which include requirements for community
consultations and POCs, as appropriate, between the applicants and
affected Native communities; (4) effectiveness of mitigation measures
stipulated by Service-issued LOAs; and (5) anticipated effects of the
applicants' proposed activities on the distribution and abundance of
walruses and polar bears. Based on the best scientific information
available and the results of harvest data, including affected villages,
the number of animals harvested, the season of the harvests, and the
location of hunting areas, we find that the effects of the exploration
activities in the Chukchi Sea region will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of walruses and polar bears for
taking for subsistence uses during the 5-year timeframe of these
regulations.
Analysis of Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry on Pacific Walruses and
Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea
Pacific Walrus
Recent offshore activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas from
the 1980s to the present highlight the type of documented impacts
offshore activities can have on walruses. More oil and gas activity has
occurred in the Beaufort Sea OCS than in the Chukchi Sea OCS. Many
offshore activities required ice management, helicopter traffic, fixed
wing aircraft monitoring, other support vessels, and stand-by barges.
Although Industry has encountered walruses while conducting exploratory
activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, to date, no walruses are
known to have been injured or killed due to encounters associated with
Industry activities.
1. Reported Observations
Aerial surveys and vessel based observations of walruses were
carried out in 1989 and 1990, to examine the responses of walruses to
drilling operations at three Chukchi Sea drill prospects (Brueggeman et
al. 1990, 1991). Aerial surveys documented several thousand walruses in
the vicinity of the drilling prospects; most of the animals (> 90
percent) were closely associated with sea ice. The observations
demonstrated that: (1) Walrus distributions were closely linked with
pack ice; (2) pack ice was near active drill prospects for short time
periods; and (3) ice passing near active prospects contained relatively
few animals. Thus, the effects of the drilling operations on walruses
were short-term, temporary, and in a discrete area near the drilling
operations, and the portion of the walrus population affected was
small.
Between 2006 and 2011, monitoring by Industry during seismic
surveys in the Chukchi Sea resulted in 1,801 observed encounters
involving approximately 11,125 individual walruses (Table 3). We
classified the behavior of walruses associated with these encounters
as: (1) No reaction; (2) attention (watched vessel); (3) approach
(moved toward vessel); (4) avoidance (moved away from vessel at normal
speed); (5) escape or flee (moved away from vessel at high rate of
speed); and (6) unknown. These classifications were based on MMO on-
site determinations or their detailed notes on walrus reactions that
accompanied the observation. Data typically included the behavior of an
animal or group when initially spotted by the MMO and any subsequent
change in behavior associated with the approach and passing of the
vessel. This monitoring protocol was designed to detect walruses far
from the vessel and avoid and mitigate take, not to estimate the long-
term impacts of the encounters on individual animals.
Table 3--Summary of Pacific Walrus Responses to Encounters With Seismic Survey Vessels in the Chukchi Sea Oil
and Gas Lease Sale Area 193 in 2006-2010 as Recorded by On-Board Marine Mammal Observers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean (SE \a\)
Walrus reaction Number of Number of individuals/ Mean (SE) meters
encounters individuals encounter from vessel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None.................................... 955 7,310 8(1.7) 710(24)
Attention............................... 285 1,419 5(1.9) 446(29)
Approach................................ 47 89 2(0.3) 395(50)
Avoidance............................... 435 940 2(0.1) 440(26)
Flee.................................... 47 170 4(0.9) 382(56)
Unknown................................. 32 1,197 37(29.0) 558(78)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35393]]
Total or overall mean............... 1,801 11,125 6(1.1) 582(15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard error.
Nonetheless, the data do provide insight as to the short-term
responses of walruses to vessel encounters.
Descriptive statistics were estimated based on both the number of
encounters and number of individuals involved (Table 3). For both
metrics (encounters and individuals), the most prevalent behavioral
response was no response (53 and 66 percent, respectively) (Table 3);
followed by attention or avoidance (8 and 24 percent combined,
respectively), with the fewest animals exhibiting a flight response (3
and 2 percent, respectively). Based on these observation data, it is
likely that relatively few animals were encountered during these
operations each year (less than 2 percent of a minimum population of
129,000) and that of those encountered, walrus responses to vessel
encounters were minimal. The most vigorous observed reaction of
walruses to the vessels was a flight response, which is within their
normal range of activity. Walruses vigorously flee predators such as
killer whales and polar bears. However, unlike a passing ship, those
encounters are likely to last for some time causing more stress as
predators often spend time pursuing, testing, and manipulating
potential prey before initiating an attack. As most observed animals
exhibited minimal responses to Industry activity and relatively few
animals exhibited a flight response, we do not anticipate that
interactions will impact survival or reproduction of walruses at the
individual or population level.
We do not know the length of time or distance traveled by walruses
that approached, avoided, or fled from the vessels before resuming
normal activities. However, it is likely that those responses lasted
less than 30 minutes and covered less than 805 m (0.5 mi), based on
data reported by the MMO programs.
MMO data collected in 2012 for 48 walrus observations indicate that
walrus encounter times ranged from less than 1 to 31 minutes, averaging
3 minutes. The shortest duration encounters usually involved single
animals that did not react to the vessel or dove and were not seen
again. The longest duration encounter occurred when a vessel was moving
through broken ice and encountered several groups of walruses in rapid
succession. These data indicate that most encounters were of single
animals where behavioral response times were limited to short
durations.
During 2006-2011, observations from Industry activities in the
Beaufort Sea indicate that, in most cases, walruses appeared
undisturbed by human interactions. Walruses have hauled out on the
armor of offshore drilling islands or coastal facilities and exhibited
mild reactions (raise head and observe) to helicopter noise. There is
no evidence that there were any physical effects or impacts to these
individual walruses based on the observed interactions with Industry. A
more detailed account of Industry-generated noise effects can be found
in the Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears, Pacific Walrus, 1. Disturbance from Noise
section.
2. Cumulative Impacts
The 2010 status review of the Pacific walrus (Garlich-Miller et al.
2011) prepared by the Service (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/pdf/review_2011.pdf) and Jay et al. (2012) describe natural and
human factors that could contribute to cumulative effects that could
impact walruses into the future. Factors other than oil and gas
activities that could affect walruses within the 5-year period of these
regulations include climate change, harvest, and increased shipping,
all of which are discussed below.
A. Climate Change
Analysis of long-term environmental data sets indicates that
substantial reductions in both the extent and thickness of the Arctic
sea ice cover have occurred over the past 40 years. The record minimum
sea ice extent occurred in September 2012 with 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009,
2010, and 2011 ice extent close to the record low and substantially
below the 20-year mean (NSIDC 2012). Walruses rely on suitable sea ice
as a substrate for resting between foraging bouts, calving, molting,
isolation from predators, and protection from storm events. The
juxtaposition of sea ice over shallow shelf habitat suitable for
benthic feeding is important to walruses. The recent trend in the
Chukchi Sea has resulted in seasonal sea ice retreat off the
continental shelf and over deep Arctic Ocean waters, presenting
significant adaptive challenges to walruses in the region. Observed
impacts to walruses as a result of diminishing sea ice cover include: A
northward shift in range and declines in Bering Sea haulout use; an
increase in the speed of the spring migration; earlier formation and
longer duration of Chukchi Sea coastal haulouts; and increased
vulnerability to predation and disturbance while at Chukchi Sea coastal
haulouts, resulting in increased mortality rates among younger animals.
Postulated effects include: Premature separation of females and
dependent calves; reductions in the prey base; declines in animal
health and condition; increased interactions with development
activities; population decline; and the potential for the harvest to
become unsustainable.
Future studies investigating walrus distributions, population
status and trend, harvest sustainability, and habitat use patterns in
the Chukchi Sea are important for responding to walrus conservation and
management issues associated with environmental and habitat changes.
Icebreaking by vessels is a concern to some who believe that this
activity could accelerate climate change and detrimentally affect
walrus or polar bear ice habitat. However, according to the National
Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#icebreakers), ``When icebreakers travel through sea ice, they leave
trails of open water in their wake. Dark open water does not reflect
nearly as much sunlight as ice does, so sometimes people wonder if
icebreakers speed up or exacerbate sea ice decline. In summer, the
passages created by icebreakers do increase local summertime melting
because the ships cut through the ice and expose new areas of water to
warm air. The melt caused by an icebreaker is small and localized.
Channels created
[[Page 35394]]
by icebreakers are quite narrow and few in number compared to natural
gaps in the ice. In winter, any openings caused by icebreakers will
quickly freeze over again. Scientists do not think that icebreakers
play a significant role in accelerating the decline in Arctic sea
ice.'' More information on this topic is available at (http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/04/12/are-icebreakers-changing-the-climate/).
For activities in the Chukchi Sea, Industry ice management will
consist of actively pushing the ice off its trajectory with the bow of
the ice management vessel, but some ice-breaking could be required for
the safety of property and assets, such as a drill rig.
For our analysis, we determined that the only ice breaking that
will occur would be if a large floe needed to be deflected from
Industry equipment (including ships and drilling platforms), and it
would be more efficient to break up that floe. For example, in 2012,
ice management was required during a total of 7 days from 31 August to
13 September and was limited to 9 discrete isolated events, where ice
was broken apart only two times. Further, if ice floes are too large,
the drill rig will cease operations, secure the site, release the
anchors, and move from the site until the floe has passed, as occurred
in 2012 at the Burger A prospect, which required the drill ship to be
off-site for 10 days.
B. Harvest
Walruses have an intrinsically low rate of reproduction and are
thus limited in their capacity to respond to exploitation. In the late
19th century, American whalers intensively harvested walruses in the
northern Bering and southern Chukchi seas. Between 1869 and 1879,
catches averaged more than 10,000 per year, with many more animals
struck and lost. The population was substantially depleted by the end
of the century, and the commercial hunting Industry collapsed in the
early 1900s. Since 1930, the combined walrus harvests of the United
States and Russian Federation have ranged from 2,300 to 9,500 animals
per year. Notable harvest peaks occurred during 1930 to 1960 (4,500 to
9,500 per year) and in the 1980s (7,000 to 16,000 per year). Commercial
hunting continued in the Russian Federation until 1991, under a quota
system of up to 3,000 animals per year. Since 1992, the harvest of
walruses has been limited to the subsistence catch of coastal
communities in Alaska and Chukotka. Harvest levels through the 1990s
ranged from approximately 4,100 to 7,600 animals per year and 3,800 to
6,800 in the 2000s. As described in detail earlier in the Subsistence
Use and Harvest Patterns of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears section,
recent harvest levels are lower than historic highs. The Service is
currently working to assess population size and sustainable harvest
rates.
C. Commercial Fishing and Marine Vessel Traffic
Available data suggest that walruses rarely interact with
commercial fishing and marine vessel traffic. Walruses are normally
closely associated with sea ice, which limits their interactions with
fishing vessels and barge traffic. However, as previously noted, the
temporal and seasonal extent of the sea ice is projected to diminish in
the future. Commercial shipping through the Northwest Passage and
Northern Sea Route may increase in coming decades. Commercial fishing
opportunities may also expand should the sea ice continue to diminish.
The result could be increased temporal and spatial overlap between
fishing and shipping operations and walrus habitat use and increased
interactions between walruses and marine vessels.
Hunting pressure, declining sea ice due to climate change, and the
expansion of commercial activities into walrus habitat all have
potential to impact walruses. Combined, these factors are expected to
present significant challenges to future walrus conservation and
management efforts. The success of future management efforts will rely
in part on continued investments in research investigating population
status and trend and habitat use patterns. Research by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and the Chukotka Branch of the Pacific
Fisheries Research Center examining walrus habitat use patterns in the
Chukchi Sea is beginning to provide useable results (Jay et al. 2012).
In addition, the Service is beginning to develop and test some methods
for a genetic mark-recapture project to estimate walrus population size
and trend and demographic parameters. The effectiveness of various
mitigation measures and management actions will also need to be
continually evaluated through monitoring programs and adjusted as
necessary. The decline in sea ice is of particular concern, and will be
considered in the evaluation of future activities and as more
information on walrus population status becomes available.
Evaluation of Documented Impacts to Pacific Walrus
The projects, including the most extensive activities, such as
seismic surveys and exploratory drilling operations, identified by the
petitioners are likely to result in some incremental cumulative effects
to walruses through the potential exclusion or avoidance of walruses
from feeding or resting areas and the disruption of associated
biological behaviors. However, based on the habitat use patterns of
walruses in the Chukchi Sea and their close association with seasonal
pack ice, relatively small numbers of walruses are likely to be
encountered in the open sea conditions where most of the Industry
activities are expected to occur. In the Hanna Shoal area, we can
reliably predict that many walruses will likely remain even after the
ice melts for foraging purposes. Because of this, Industry activities
that occur near coastal haulouts within the HSWUA, or intersect travel
corridors between haulouts and the HSWUA, may require close monitoring
and additional special mitigation procedures, such as seasonal
restrictions (e.g., July to September) of Industry activities from
Hanna Shoal and rerouting vessel traffic and aircraft flights around
walrus travel corridors. Required monitoring and mitigation measures,
designed to minimize interactions between authorized projects and
concentrations of resting or feeding walruses, are expected to limit
interactions and trigger real time consultations if needed. Therefore,
we conclude that the exploration activities, especially as mitigated
through the regulatory process, are not at this time expected to add
significantly to the cumulative impacts on the walrus population from
past, present, and future activities that are reasonably likely to
occur within the 5-year period covered by these regulations.
Polar Bear
Information regarding interactions between oil and gas activities
and polar bears in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas has been collected for
several decades. To date, most impacts to polar bears from Industry
operations in the Chukchi Sea have been temporary disturbance events,
some of which have led to deterrence actions. Monitoring efforts by
Industry required under previous regulations for the incidental take of
polar bears documented various types of interactions between polar
bears and Industry (USFWS unpublished data). This analysis concentrates
on the Chukchi Sea information collected through regulatory
requirements and is useful in predicting how polar bears are likely to
be affected by Industry activities.
To date, most impacts to polar bears from Industry operations in
the Chukchi Sea have been temporary disturbance
[[Page 35395]]
events, some of which have led to deterrence events. Monitoring efforts
by Industry required under previous regulations for the incidental take
of polar bears documented various types of interactions between polar
bears and Industry.
1. Reported Observations
From 1989 to 1991, Shell Western E&P conducted drilling operations
in the Chukchi Sea. A total of 110 polar bears were recorded from
aerial surveys and from support and ice management vessels during the 3
years. In 1989, 18 bears were sighted in the pack ice during the
monitoring programs associated with the drilling program. In 1990, a
total of 25 polar bears were observed on the pack ice in the Chukchi
Sea between June 29 and August 11, 1990. Seventeen bears were
encountered by the support vessel, Robert LeMeur, during an ice
reconnaissance survey before drilling began at the prospects. During
drilling operations, four bears were observed near (<9 km or 5.5 mi)
active prospects, and the remainder were considerably beyond the
drilling operation (15 to 40 km or 9.3 to 24.8 mi). These bears
responded to the drilling or icebreaking operations by approaching (two
bears), watching (nine bears), slowly moving away (seven bears), or
ignoring (five bears) the activities; response was not evaluated for
two bears. During the 1991 drilling program, 64 polar bears were
observed on the pack ice, and one was observed swimming south of the
ice edge. The researchers of the 1990 monitoring program for the Shell
exploration concluded that: (1) Polar bear distributions were closely
linked to the pack ice; (2) the pack ice was near the active prospects
for a brief time; and (3) the ice passing near active prospects
contained few animals. These data were collected when sea ice in the
region was more prevalent than today, and we anticipate that current
and future operations will observe fewer bears; however, we expect that
behaviorally the bears observed will react similarly.
Between 2006 and 2011, 16 offshore projects were issued incidental
take authority for polar bears: Seven seismic surveys; four shallow
hazards and site clearance surveys; and five environmental studies,
including ice observation flights and onshore and offshore
environmental baseline surveys. Observers associated with these 16
projects documented 62 individual bears in 47 different observations.
These observations and bear responses are discussed below.
The majority of the bears were observed on land (50 percent; 31 of
62 polar bears). Twenty-one bears (34 percent) were recorded on the
ice, mainly in unconsolidated ice on ice floes, and 10 bears (16
percent) were observed swimming in the water. Fifty-seven percent of
the polar bears (35 of 62 bears) were observed from vessels, while 35
percent (22 of 62 bears) were sighted from aerial surveys and 8 percent
(5 of 62 bears) were observed from the ground.
Of the 62 polar bears documented, 32 percent (20 of 62 bears) of
the observations were recorded as Level B harassment takes, where the
bears exhibited short-term, temporary reactions to the conveyance,
vessel, plane, or vehicle, such as moving away from the conveyance. No
polar bears were intentionally deterred. Sixty-five percent of the
bears (40 of 62 bears) exhibited no behavioral reactions to the
conveyance, while the reactions of 3 percent of the bears (2 of 62
bears) were unknown (not observed or not recorded). Most polar bears
were observed during secondary or support activities, such as aerial
surveys or transiting between project areas. These activities were
associated with a primary project, such as a seismic operation. No
polar bears were observed during active seismic operations.
Additionally, other activities have occurred in the Chukchi Sea
region that have resulted in reports of polar bear sightings to the
Service. Five polar bear observations (11 individuals) were recorded
during the University of Texas at Austin's marine geophysical survey
performed by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Cutter Healy in 2006. All
bears were observed on the ice between July 21 and August 19. The
closest point of approach distances of bears from the Healy ranged from
780 m to 2.5 km (853 yards [yd] to 1.5 mi). One bear was observed
approximately 575 m (628.8 yd) from a helicopter conducting ice
reconnaissance. Four of the groups exhibited possible reactions to the
helicopter or vessel, suggesting that disturbances from offshore vessel
operations when they occur are short-term and limited to minor changes
in behavior.
In 2007, a female bear and her cub were observed approximately 100
meters (110 yd) from a drill pad at the Intrepid exploration drilling
site, located on the Chukchi Sea coast south of Barrow. The bear did
not appear concerned about the activity and eventually the female
changed her direction of movement and left the area.
Additional information exists on Industry and polar bear encounters
from the Beaufort Sea (76 FR 47010; August 3, 2011). Documented impacts
on polar bears by Industry in the Beaufort Sea during the past 30 years
appear minimal. Polar bears spend time on land, coming ashore to feed,
den, or move to other areas. Recent studies suggest that bears are
spending more time on land than they have in the past in response to
changing ice conditions.
Annual monitoring reports from Industry activities and community
observations in the Beaufort Sea indicate that fall storms, combined
with reduced sea ice, force bears to concentrate along the coastline
(between August to October) where bears remain until the ice returns.
For this reason, polar bears have been encountered at or near most
coastal and offshore production facilities, or along the roads and
causeways that link these facilities to the mainland. During those
periods, the likelihood of interactions between polar bears and
Industry activities increases. During 2011, in the Beaufort Sea region,
companies observed 237 polar bears in 140 sightings on land and in the
nearshore marine environment. Of the 237 bears observed in 2011, 44
bears (19 percent of the total observed) were recorded as Level B takes
as they were deterred (hazed) away from facilities and people. Industry
monitoring reports indicate that most bears are observed within a mile
of the coastline. Similarly, we expect intermittent periods with high
concentrations of bears to occur along the Chukchi Sea coastline as 50
percent of the bear encounters between 2006 and 2011 were documented in
the onshore habitat.
While no lethal take of polar bears has occurred in the Chukchi
Sea, a lethal take associated with Industry occurred at the Beaufort
Sea Endicott facility in 2011, when a security guard mistakenly used a
crackershell in place of a bean bag deterrent round and killed the bear
during a deterrence action. Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal
takes by Industry were rare. Since 1968, there have been two documented
cases, one in the winter of 1968-1969, and one in 1990, of lethal take
of polar bears associated with oil and gas activities; in both of these
instances, the lethal take was reported to be in defense of human life.
2. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts of oil and gas activities are assessed, in part,
through the information we gain in monitoring reports, which are a
required component of each operator's LOA under the authorizations. We
have over 20 years of monitoring reports, and the information on all
incidental and intentional polar bear interactions
[[Page 35396]]
provides a comprehensive history of past effects of Industry activities
on polar bears. We use the information on previous impacts to evaluate
potential impacts from existing and future Industry activities and
facilities. Additional information used in our cumulative effects
assessment includes: Service, USGS, and other polar bear research and
data; traditional knowledge of polar bear habitat use; anecdotal
observations; and professional judgment.
While the number of LOAs being requested does not represent the
potential for direct impact to polar bears, they do offer an index as
to the effort and type of Industry activity that is currently being
conducted. LOA trend data also help the Service track progress on
various projects as they move through the stages of oil field
development. An increase in Industry projects across the Arctic has the
ability to increase bear-human interactions.
The Polar Bear Status Review describes cumulative effects of oil
and gas development on polar bears in Alaska (see pages 175 to 181 of
the status review). This document can be found at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf. The status review concentrated on oil and gas
development in the Beaufort Sea because of the established presence of
Industry in the Beaufort Sea. The Service believes the conclusions of
the status review will apply to Industry activities in the Chukchi Sea
during the 5-year timeframe of these regulations as the exploratory
activities in the Beaufort Sea are similar to those in the Chukchi Sea.
In addition, in 2003, the National Research Council published a
description of the cumulative effects that oil and gas development will
have on polar bears and seals in Alaska. They concluded that:
(1) ``Industrial activity in the marine waters of the Beaufort Sea
has been limited and sporadic and likely has not caused serious
cumulative effects to ringed seals or polar bears.'' Industry activity
in the Chukchi Sea during the timeframe of these regulations will be
limited to exploration activities, such as seismic, drilling, and
support activities.
(2) ``Careful mitigation can help to reduce the effects of oil and
gas development and their accumulation, especially if there is no major
oil spill.'' The Service will use mitigation measures similar to those
established in the Beaufort Sea to limit impacts of polar bears in the
Chukchi Sea. ``However, the effects of full scale industrial
development off the North Slope will accumulate through the
displacement of polar bears and ringed seals from their habitats,
increased mortality, and decreased reproductive success.'' Full-scale
development of this nature will not occur during the prescribed
timeframe of these regulations in the Chukchi Sea.
(3) ``A major Beaufort Sea oil spill would have major effects on
polar bears and ringed seals.'' One of the concerns for future oil and
gas development is for those activities that occur in the marine
environment due to the chance for oil spills to impact polar bears or
their habitats. No production activities are planned for the Chukchi
Sea during the duration of these regulations. Oil spills as a result of
exploratory drilling activity could occur in the Chukchi Sea; however,
the probability of a large spill at the exploration stage is expected
to be low.
(4) ``Climatic warming at predicted rates in the Beaufort and
Chukchi seas region is likely to have serious consequences for ringed
seals and polar bears, and those effects will accumulate with the
effects of oil and gas activities in the region.'' The Service is
currently working to minimize the impacts of climate change on its
trust species. The implementation of ITRs is one effective way to
address and minimize impacts to polar bears.
(5) ``Unless studies to address the potential accumulation of
effects on North Slope polar bears or ringed seals are designed,
funded, and conducted over long periods of time, it will be impossible
to verify whether such effects occur, to measure them, or to explain
their causes.'' Current studies in the Chukchi Sea are examining polar
bear habitat use and distribution, reproduction, and survival relative
to a changing sea ice environment.
Climate change, predominantly through sea ice decline, will alter
polar bear habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended duration
of open water, will preclude sea ice habitat use by restricting some
bears to coastal areas. Biological effects on polar bears are expected
to include increased movements or travel, changes in bear distribution
throughout their range, changes to the access and allocation of denning
areas, and increased open water swimming. Demographic effects that may
be influenced by climate change include changes in prey availability to
polar bears, a potential reduction in the access to prey, and changes
in seal productivity.
In the Chukchi Sea, it is expected that the reduction of sea ice
extent will affect the timing of polar bear seasonal movements between
the coastal regions and the pack ice. If the sea ice continues to
recede as predicted, the Service anticipates that there may be an
increased use of terrestrial habitat in the fall period by polar bears
on the western coast of Alaska and an increased use of terrestrial
habitat by denning bears in the same area, which may expose bears to
Industry activity. Mitigation measures will be effective in minimizing
any additional effects attributed to seasonal shifts in distributions
of denning polar bears during the 5-year timeframe of these
regulations. It is likely that, due to potential seasonal changes in
abundance and distribution of polar bears during the fall, more
frequent encounters may occur and that Industry may have to implement
mitigation measures more often, for example, increasing polar bear
deterrence events. As with the Beaufort Sea, the challenge in the
Chukchi Sea will be predicting changes in ice habitat and coastal
habitats in relation to changes in polar bear distribution and use of
habitat.
A detailed description of climate change and its potential effects
on polar bears by the Service can be found in the documents supporting
the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the
ESA at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/esa.htm#listing.
Additional detailed information by the USGS regarding the status of the
SBS stock in relation to decreasing sea ice due to increasing
temperatures in the Arctic, projections of habitat and populations, and
forecasts of range-wide status can be found at: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears.
The activities (drilling operations, seismic surveys, and support
operations) identified by the petitioners are likely to result in some
incremental cumulative effects to polar bears during the 5-year
timeframe of these regulations. This could occur through the potential
exclusion or avoidance of polar bears from feeding, resting, or denning
areas and disruption of associated biological behaviors. However, the
level of cumulative effects, including those of climate change, during
the 5-year timeframe of these regulations are projected to result in
negligible effects on the bear population.
Evaluation of Documented Impacts on Polar Bears
Monitoring results from Industry, analyzed by the Service, indicate
that little to no short-term impacts on polar bears have resulted from
oil and gas activities. We evaluated both subtle and acute impacts
likely to occur from industrial activity, and we determined
[[Page 35397]]
that all direct and indirect effects, including cumulative effects, of
industrial activities have not adversely affected the species through
effects on rates of recruitment or survival. Based on past monitoring
reports, the level of interaction between Industry and polar bears has
been minimal and provides evidence that these populations have not been
adversely affected. For the 5-year timeframe of these regulations, we
anticipate the level of oil and gas Industry interactions with polar
bears would likely increase in response to more bears on shore and more
activity along the coast; however we do not anticipate significant
impacts on bears to occur.
Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Small Numbers Determination
As discussed in the ``Biological Information'' section, the dynamic
nature of sea ice habitats influences seasonal and annual distribution
and abundance of polar bears and walruses in the specified geographical
region (eastern Chukchi Sea). The following analysis demonstrates that,
with these regulations, only small numbers of walruses and polar bears
are likely to be taken incidental to the described Industry activities.
This analysis is based upon known distribution patterns and habitat use
of walruses and polar bears.
Pacific Walrus
The Service has based its small numbers determination on an
examination of the best available information concerning the range of
this species and its habitat use patterns (see Biological Information
for additional details); information regarding the siting, timing,
scope, and footprint of Industry activities (see Description of
Activities for additional details); information regarding monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures designed to avoid and mitigate
incidental take of walruses during authorized activities (see Section
18.118 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements in the Final
Regulation Promulgation section for additional details); and the
Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193 stipulations by the Mineral Management
Service (now BOEM in February 2008 regarding protection of biological
resources. The objective of this analysis is to determine whether or
not Industry activities described in the ITR petition are likely to
impact small numbers of individual animals.
The specified geographic region covered by this request includes
the waters (State of Alaska and OCS) and bed of the Chukchi Sea, as
well as terrestrial habitat up to 40 km (25 mi) inland (Figure 1; see
Final Regulation Promulgation section). The marine environment and
terrestrial coastal haulouts are considered walrus habitat for this
analysis. The petition specifies that offshore exploration activities
will be limited to the July 1 to November 30 open-water season to avoid
seasonal pack ice. Furthermore, the petition specifies that onshore or
near shore activities will not occur in the vicinity of coastal walrus
haulouts. Oil and gas activities anticipated and considered in our
analysis include: (1) Offshore exploration drilling; (2) offshore 3D
and 2D seismic surveys; (3) shallow hazards surveys; (4) other
geophysical surveys, such as ice gouge, strudel scour, and bathymetry
surveys; (5) geotechnical surveys; (6) onshore and offshore
environmental studies; and (7) associated support activities for the
aforementioned activities. A full description of these activities can
be found in this document in the Description of Activities section.
Distribution of Walruses During the Open-Water Season
During the July to November open-water season, the Pacific walrus
population ranges well beyond the boundaries of the specified
geographic region (Figure 1; see Final Regulation Promulgation
section). Based on population surveys, haulout monitoring studies, and
satellite tracking studies, the population generally occurs in three
areas: The majority of males remain in the Bering Sea outside of the
specified geographic region. Juveniles, adult females, and calves are
distributed in the western Chukchi Sea in the vicinity of both Wrangel
and Herald Islands in Russian waters. Another subset of females and
young are in the eastern Chukchi Sea, which includes the specified
geographic region, with high densities in the Hanna Shoal area (Fay
1982; Jay et al. 2012). Therefore, the animals in the northeast Chukchi
Sea that could potentially be influenced by Industry activities
represent only a portion of the overall population.
Though the specified geographic region of these regulations (Figure
1; see Final Regulation Promulgation section) includes areas of
potential walrus habitat, the actual area of Industry activities
occurring within this region will be relatively small. The entire
Chukchi Sea is approximately 600,000 km\2\ (231,660 mi\2\). The area of
the specified geographic region (Figure 1; see Final Regulation
Promulgation section) is approximately 240,000 km\2\ (92,664 mi\2\),
and the area covered by Lease Sale 193 offered in 2006 was
approximately 138,000 km\2\ (53,282 mi\2\), with currently active
leases covering approximately 11,163 km\2\ (4,310 mi\2\). The Chukchi
Sea is only a portion of the overall Pacific walrus range, and though
most of it contains suitable walrus habitat, some portions are not
suitable (e.g., where water depths exceed 100 m). However, if we assume
that the entire 600,000 km\2\ (231,660 mi\2\) of the Chukchi Sea is
utilized by walruses, then the specified geographic region (Figure 1;
see Final Regulation Promulgation section) covers approximately 40
percent, Lease Sale 193 area covers approximately 23 percent, and
current active leases cover approximately 2 percent of the Chukchi Sea,
respectively. In any single year, and over the 5-year period of these
regulations, Industry activity will only occur on a portion of the
active lease area. For example, AOGA indicates in its petition that one
seismic survey will occur each year during the 5-year period of these
regulations. AOGA further estimates that a typical marine 3D seismic
survey is expected to ensonify approximately 1680 km\2\ (649 mi\2\) of
sea floor. This equates to roughly 15 percent of the active lease area,
0.7 percent of the specified geographic region (Figure 1; see Final
Regulation Promulgation section), and 0.28 percent of the Chukchi Sea
per year, respectively.
We anticipate that Industry activities will impact a relatively
small proportion of the potential walrus habitat in the specified
geographical region at any given time, whether or not the habitat is
occupied by walruses. The narrow scope and footprint of activities that
will occur in any given year limits the potential for Industry to
interact with the subset of the walruses that may be distributed in the
eastern Chukchi Sea during the open-water season.
Habitat Use Patterns in the Specified Geographic Region
The subset of the overall walrus population residing in the eastern
Chukchi Sea can be widespread and abundant depending on ice conditions
and distribution. Walruses typically migrate into the region in early
June along lead systems that form along the coast. Walruses summering
in the eastern Chukchi Sea exhibit strong selection for sea ice
habitats. Previous aerial survey efforts in the area found that 80 to
96 percent of walruses were closely associated with sea ice habitats,
and that the number of walruses observed in open water habitats
[[Page 35398]]
decreased significantly with distance from the pack ice (Gilbert 1999).
The distribution of the subset of the walrus population that occurs
in the specified geographic region (Figure 1; see Final Regulation
Promulgation section) each year is primarily influenced by the
distribution and extent of seasonal pack ice, which is expected to vary
substantially both seasonally and annually. In June and July, scattered
groups of walruses are typically associated with loose pack ice
habitats between Icy Cape and Point Barrow (Fay 1982; Gilbert et al.
1992). Recent walrus telemetry studies investigating foraging patterns
suggest that many walruses focus foraging efforts near Hanna Shoal in
the eastern Chukchi Sea, northwest of Point Barrow (Jay et al. 2012).
In August and September, concentrations of animals tend to be in areas
of unconsolidated pack ice, usually within 100 km (62 mi) of the
leading edge of the ice pack (Gilbert 1999). Individual groups
occupying unconsolidated pack ice typically range from fewer than 10 to
more than 1,000 animals (Gilbert 1999; Ray et al. 2006). In August and
September, the edge of the pack ice generally retreats north to
approximately 71[deg] N latitude (the majority of active lease blocks
are between 71 and 72[deg] N), but in light ice years can retreat north
of the continental shelf (Douglas 2010), about 73 to 75[deg] N. Sea ice
normally reaches its minimum (northern) extent in September, and ice
begins to reform rapidly in October and November. Walruses typically
migrate out of the eastern Chukchi Sea in October in advance of the
developing sea ice (Fay 1982; Jay et al. 2012).
Sea ice has historically persisted in the Chukchi Sea region
through the entire year although the extent of sea ice cover over
continental shelf areas during the summer and fall has been highly
variable. Over the past decade, sea ice has begun to retreat beyond
shallow continental shelf waters in late summer. For example, in 5 of
the last 8 years (2004 to 2012), the continental shelf waters of the
eastern Chukchi Sea have become ice free in late summer, for a period
ranging from a few weeks up to 2 months. Climate-based models suggest
that the observed trend of rapid ice loss from continental shelf
regions of the Chukchi Sea is expected to persist, and perhaps
accelerate in the future (Douglas 2010).
Based on telemetry studies, during periods of minimal or no-ice
cover over continental shelf regions of the eastern Chukchi Sea, we
expect that most walruses in that subset of the population will either
migrate out of the region beyond the scope of Industry activities in
pursuit of more favorable ice habitats (i.e., the western Chukchi Sea),
or relocate to coastal haulouts where they can rest on land between
foraging excursions (Jay et al. 2012). Walruses occupying coastal
haulouts along the Chukchi Sea coast tend to aggregate in large dense
groups, which are vulnerable to disturbances that can result in
trampling injuries and mortalities (Garlich-Miller et. al. 2011). The
AOGA petition specifically notes that Industry activities will not
occur near coastal walrus haulouts. In addition, OCS Lease Sale Area
193 excluded a 40-km (25-mi) coastal buffer zone from the lease area to
protect sensitive coastal habitats and mitigate potential interactions
with subsistence hunting activities along the coast. We expect that a
similar coastal buffer zone will be included in future lease sales in
the region. Moreover, required mitigation measures for authorized
activities pursuant to the final ITRs expressly forbid operating near
coastal walrus haulouts (see mitigation measures below). For example,
all support vessels and aircraft will be required to maintain a 1-mile
buffer area around groups of walruses hauled out on land. Because of
these limitations on authorized activities near coastal walrus
haulouts, we do not expect that any takes will occur at coastal
haulouts from Industry activities.
We expect that the density of walruses in offshore, open water
environments, where most exploration activities are expected to occur,
will be relatively low. Based on previous aerial survey efforts in the
region (Gilbert 1999) and satellite tracking of walrus distributions
and movement patterns in the region (Jay et al. 2012), we expect that
most walruses in the subset of the overall population in the specified
geographic region will be closely associated with broken pack ice
during the open-water season. This would limit the exposure of walruses
to seismic surveys and exploratory drilling operations, where we expect
Industry operations to avoid these areas of broken ice cover in order
to avoid damaging their equipment. Furthermore, during the open-water
season, walruses could also occupy coastal haulouts when ice
concentrations are low in offshore regions.
Telemetry studies investigating the foraging behavior of walruses
at coastal haulouts indicate that most animals forage within 30 to 60
km (19 to 37 mi) of coastal haulouts (Fischbach et al. 2010), primarily
within the 40-km (25-mi) coastal buffer, which is closed to seismic
surveys and drilling. However, some animals appear to make long
foraging excursions from coastal haulouts to offshore feeding areas
near Hanna Shoal (about 180 km, 112 mi from Point Lay, AK) (Jay et al.
2012). This movement pattern is also apparent based on walrus
vocalizations recorded at buoys placed throughout the area in 2010
(Delarue et al. 2012). Given this observed behavior, we expect that the
density of walruses in the HSWUA could be relatively high compared with
other offshore regions, even during periods of minimal sea ice cover.
Most of the lease sale blocks in the HSWUA region are currently not
leased. Based on the significant biological value of HSWUA to walrus
foraging, and the likelihood of encountering large groups of foraging
walruses in that area through September, additional mitigation measures
may be anticipated to limit disturbances and impacts to Pacific
walruses when they are using this area.
Authorized Industry activities occurring near Hanna Shoal could
potentially encounter groups of walruses moving from other areas,
including coastal haulouts. The timing and movement routes between
coastal haulouts and offshore foraging areas are not known, and are
likely to vary from year to year. Although it is difficult to predict
where groups of moving or feeding walruses are likely to be encountered
in offshore open water environments, monitoring requirements and
adaptive mitigation measures are expected to limit interactions with
groups of walruses encountered in open water habitats. For example, all
authorized support vessels must employ MMOs to monitor for the presence
of walruses and other marine mammals. Vessel operators are required to
take every precaution to avoid interactions with concentrations of
feeding or moving walruses, and must maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi)
operational exclusion zone around walrus groups encountered in open
water. Although monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation
measures are not expected to completely eliminate interactions with
walruses in open water habitats, they are expected to limit takes to
relatively small numbers of animals.
In summary, based upon scientific knowledge of the habitat use
patterns of walruses in the specified region, we expect the number of
animals using pelagic waters during the operating season to be small
relative to the number of animals using habitats preferred by and more
favorable to walruses (i.e., pack ice habitats and/or coastal haulouts
and near-shore environments). Industry will not be
[[Page 35399]]
operating in areas with extensive ice cover due to their own operating
limitations, and therefore Industry activities will avoid preferred
walrus habitats. Further regulatory restrictions, such as stipulations
on activities near haulouts, will ensure that Industry activities will
not occur in or near those preferred walrus habitat areas. Moreover, it
is possible that LOAs may not be issued for seismic and drilling
activities in the HSWUA. Industry requests for incidental take
authorization in the HSWUA during seasons of high walrus use will be
considered on a case-by-case basis and Industry may be required to
implement increased mitigation measures.
Most of the Industry oil and gas exploration activity is projected
to occur in offshore areas under open water conditions where densities
of walruses are expected to be low. Support vessels and aircraft
transiting through areas of broken ice habitat where densities of
walruses may be higher will be required to employ monitoring and
adaptive mitigation measures intended to reduce interactions with
walruses. Accordingly, in consideration of the habitat characteristics
where most exploration activities are expected to occur (open-water
environments) and specific mitigation measures designed to reduce
potential interactions with walruses and other marine mammals, we
expect that interactions will be limited to relatively small numbers of
animals compared to the number of walruses in the specified geographic
region as well as the overall population.
The Use of Monitoring Requirements and Mitigation Measures
We believe the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements we
have included in this rule are effective in ensuring the ``least
practicable adverse impact'' from oil and gas exploration activities to
Pacific walruses in the Chukchi Sea. Similar mitigation measures and
monitoring requirements in prior incidental take authorizations for the
Chukchi Sea have proved highly effective at eliminating or mitigating
adverse impacts to Pacific walruses. In addition, the mitigation
measures in this rule have been updated with the best available
scientific evidence, and in some instances, these measures have been
made more restrictive on Industry activities.
Holders of an LOA must use methods and conduct activities in a
manner that minimizes adverse impacts on walruses to the greatest
extent practicable. Monitoring programs are required to inform
operators of the presence of marine mammals and sea ice. Adaptive
management responses based on real-time monitoring information
(described in these final regulations) will be used to avoid or
minimize interactions with walruses. Adaptive management approaches,
such as temporal or spatial limitations in response to the presence of
walruses in a particular place or time, or in response to the
occurrence of walruses engaged in a particularly sensitive activity,
such as feeding, will be used to avoid or minimize interactions with
walruses.
However, monitoring programs can always be improved. Determining
the longer-term impacts of Industry activities on marine mammals is
important in assessing the negligible impact requirement of the MMPA.
Monitoring programs currently detect animals at the surface in
proximity to vessels to initiate mitigation measures. Monitors also
document some of the immediate reactions of animals in immediate
proximity to Industry activities. However, as there are no ``controls''
or reference data, the ability of the Service to estimate the full
impacts of these activities is limited. In addition, we know little
about the longer-term response of animals to various types of
anthropogenic stimulus. Both of these types of data will help better
inform the determination of a negligible impact as required under the
MMPA. To estimate longer term impacts, there is a need to be able to
monitor animals after exposure to any given activity for an extended
period. One way to acquire this data is a random sampling of
individuals and observations of those individuals prior to, during, and
following an encounter. This type of study may require the use of
additional vessels or aircraft or telemetry equipment to track animals
encountered for extended periods of time. For example, resting walruses
flushed from an ice floe would need to be tracked until they
subsequently hauled out on the ice to rest. The Service sees the
potential development of this type of study as an effort that could be
jointly and cooperatively undertaken by this process between Industry
and the regulatory agencies. When opportunities arise for these types
of cooperative activities, we believe Industry and the regulatory
agencies should work together to capitalize on them to further our
understanding of impacts to animals and address remaining information.
The inclusion in the monitoring and mitigation measures of the ``track
animals'' stipulation is to provide a mechanism by which the Service
may work with Industry to accomplish this goal. If such studies were
pursued, appropriate scientific research permits would need to be
obtained.
A full description of the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements associated with LOAs under these regulations can be found
in Section 18.118 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements in
the Final Regulation Promulgation section. Some of the mitigation
measures expected to limit interactions with walruses will include:
1. Industry operations are not permitted in the geographic region
until July 1. This condition is intended to allow walruses the
opportunity to disperse from the confines of the spring lead system and
minimize Industry interactions with subsistence walrus hunters.
2. Vessels must be staffed with MMOs to alert crew of the presence
of walruses and initiate adaptive mitigation responses when walruses
are encountered.
3. Vessels should take all practical measures (i.e., reduce speed,
change course heading) to maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi) operational
exclusion zone around groups of 12 or more walruses encountered in the
water. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate members
of a group of walruses. We note that we reviewed the data on Industry
encounters with walruses during 1989, 1990, and 2006-2012 and
calculated the average size of groups of walruses which was 16 in 1989,
13 in 1990, and 7 from 2006-2012 resulting in a mean of 12.
Observations of 12 or more walruses at the surface of the water likely
represent a larger number of walruses in the immediate area that are
not observed (possibly 70 or more).
4. Set back distances have been established between walruses and
vessels to minimize impacts and limit disturbance. These set back
distances are 805 m (0.5 mi) when walruses are observed on ice and in
the water, and 1,610 m (1 mi) when observed on land.
5. Set back distances have been established between walruses and
aircraft to minimize impacts and limit disturbance. No fixed-wing
aircraft may operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within
805 m of walrus groups observed on ice, or within 1,610 m (1 mi) of
walrus groups observed on land. No rotary winged aircraft (helicopter)
may operate at an altitude lower than 914 m (3,000 ft) elevation within
a lateral distance of 1,610 m (1 mi) of walrus groups observed on land.
These operating conditions are intended to avoid and mitigate the
potential for walruses to be flushed from ice floes or
[[Page 35400]]
land-based haulouts. In past regulations, the altitude associated with
rotary-winged aircraft was 1,500 ft. However, we have determined that
walruses at land-based haulouts are more susceptible to disturbance and
have increased the height restriction, which in turn should decrease
the possibility of disturbance.
6. Operators must maintain a minimum spacing of 24 km (15 mi)
between all active seismic-source vessels and/or drill rigs during
exploration activities to avoid significant synergistic or cumulative
effects from multiple oil and gas exploration activities on foraging or
migrating walruses. This does not include support vessels for these
operations.
7. Any offshore exploration activity expected to include the
production of downward-directed, pulsed underwater sounds with sound
source levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa will be required to establish and
monitor acoustic exclusion and disturbance zones.
8. Trained MMOs must establish acoustically verified exclusion
zones for walruses surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received
level would be >= 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa and >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa in order
to monitor incidental take.
9. Whenever 12 or more walruses are detected within the
acoustically verified 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa disturbance zone ahead of or
perpendicular to the seismic vessel track, operators must immediately
power down or shut down the seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic
sources to ensure sound pressure levels at the shortest distance to the
aggregation do not exceed 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa, and operators cannot
begin powering up the seismic airgun array until it can be established
that there are no walrus aggregations within the 160-dB disturbance
zone based upon ship course, direction to walruses, and distance from
last sighting.
These monitoring requirements and mitigation measures are not
expected to completely eliminate the potential for walruses to be taken
incidental to Industry activities in the region; however, they are
expected to significantly reduce the number of takes and the number of
walruses affected. By substantially limiting the season of operation
and by requiring buffer areas around groups of walruses on land, ice,
and in open water areas, we conclude that mitigation measures will
significantly reduce the number of walruses incidentally taken by
Industry activities.
Pacific Walrus Small Number Conclusion
Based upon our review of the best scientific information available,
we conclude that Industry activities described in the AOGA petition
will impact a relatively small number of walruses both within the
specified geographical region and at the broader population scale. The
information available includes the range, distribution, and habitat use
patterns of Pacific walruses during the operating season, the
relatively small footprint and scope of authorized projects both within
the specified geographic region and on a broader scale within the known
range of this species during the open-water season, and consideration
of monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation measures intended to
avoid and limit the number of takes to walruses encountered through the
course of authorized activities.
Polar Bears
Distribution of Polar Bears During the Open-Water Season
The number of polar bears occupying the specified geographical
region during the open-water exploration season, when the majority of
Industry activities are anticipated to occur, is expected to be smaller
than the number of animals distributed throughout their range. Polar
bears range well beyond the boundaries of the geographic region of the
ITRs and the Chukchi Sea Lease Sale area. Even though they are
naturally widely distributed throughout their range, a relatively large
proportion of bears from the CS population utilize the western Chukchi
Sea region of the Russian Federation during the open-water season.
Concurrently, polar bears from the SBS population predominantly utilize
the central Beaufort Sea region of the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic
during this period. These areas are well outside of the geographic
region of these regulations. Movement data and habitat use analysis of
bears from the CS and SBS populations suggest that they utilize the ice
habitat as a platform to survive, by feeding and resting. As the ice
recedes, the majority of the bears ``move'' with it. A small portion of
bears can be associated with the coast during the open-water season. In
addition, open water is not selected habitat for polar bears and bears
observed in the water likely try to move to a more stable habitat
platform, such as sea ice or land.
As stated earlier, though the specified geographic region described
for these regulations (Figure 1; see Final Regulation Promulgation
section) includes areas of polar bear habitat, the actual area of
Industry activity occurring within this region will be relatively
small. The entire Chukchi Sea is approximately 600,000 km\2\ (231,660
mi\2\). The area of the specified geographic region (Figure 1; see
Final Regulation Promulgation section) is approximately 240,000 km\2\
(92,664 mi\2\), the lease sale 193 area offered for leases was
approximately 138,000 km\2\ (53,282 mi\2\) with active leases of
approximately 11,163 km\2\ (4,310 mi\2\). The Chukchi Sea is only a
portion of the overall polar bear range and though most of it contains
suitable polar bear habitat, some portions are not suitable. However,
if we conservatively assume that the entire approximately 600,000 km\2\
(231,660 mi\2\) of the Chukchi Sea is utilized by polar bears, then the
specified geographic region (Figure 1; see Final Regulation
Promulgation section) covers approximately 40 percent, the lease sale
193 area approximately 23 percent, and current active leases are
approximately 2 percent of that area, respectively. In any single year,
and over the 5-year period of these regulations, Industry activity will
occur only on a portion of the active lease area. The area of
individual marine activities is expected to comprise a small percentage
of the lease area. Vessel operations will be operating in habitats
where polar bear densities are expected to be lowest, that is, open
water. Although it is impossible to predict with certainty the number
of polar bears that might be present in the offshore environment of the
lease sale area in a given year, or in a specific project area during
the open-water season, based on habitat characteristics where most
exploration activities will occur (open-water environments) and based
on scientific knowledge and observation of the species, only small
numbers of polar bears are expected to contact Industry operations, and
of those, only a small percentage will exhibit behavioral responses
constituting take.
Likewise, the number of polar bears expected to be incidentally
taken by Industry activities is a small proportion of the species'
abundance. The estimate for Level B incidental take of polar bears is
based on the past monitoring data from 2006 to 2011; the timing (open-
water season) of the primary, off-shore Industry activities in the
Chukchi Sea region; and the limited use of the pelagic environment by
polar bears during the open-water season. The estimated total Level B
incidental take for polar bears is expected to be 25 animals per year.
This is a conservative estimate which takes into account that
[[Page 35401]]
between 2006 to 2011, only 20 polar bears of the 62 polar bears
documented by Industry exhibited behavioral responses equivalent to
Level B harassment takes (3.3 Level B takes of bears/year). This number
is less than 1 percent of the estimated combined populations of the CS
and SBS polar bear stocks (approximately 2,000 and 1,500,
respectively). This estimate reflects the low densities of polar bears
occurring in the Alaska region of the Chukchi Sea during the open-water
period. The majority of interactions between polar bears and Industry
are expected to occur near the pack ice edge habitat and in the
terrestrial environment, where this estimate anticipates a potential
increase of bears interacting with terrestrial facilities through the
duration of the regulatory period (2013 to 2018).
Habitat Use Patterns in the Specified Geographic Region
Within the specified geographic region, the number of polar bears
utilizing open water habitats, where the primary activity (offshore
exploration operations) would occur, is expected to be small relative
to the number of animals utilizing pack ice habitats or coastal areas.
Polar bears are capable of swimming long distances across open water
(Pagano et al. 2012). However, polar bears remain closely associated
with primarily sea ice (where food availability is high) during the
open-water season (Durner et al. 2004). A limited number of bears could
also be found in coastal areas. We expect the number of polar bears
using pelagic waters during open-water exploration activities to be
very small relative to the number of animals exploiting more favorable
habitats in the region (i.e., pack ice habitats and/or coastal haulouts
and near shore environments).
In addition, a small portion of terrestrial habitat used by polar
bears may be exposed to Industry activities. As detailed in the section
``Description of Geographic Region,'' terrestrial habitat encompasses
approximately 10,000 km\2\ (3,861 mi\2\) of the NPR-A. Bears can use
the terrestrial habitat to travel and possibly den and a smaller
portion of this habitat situated along the coast could be potential
polar bear denning habitat. However, the majority of coastal denning
for the Chukchi Sea bears occurs along the Chukotka coast in the
Russian Federation, outside of the geographic region. Hence, Industry
activities operating on the Alaskan coast have the potential to impact
only a small number of bears. Additionally, where terrestrial
activities may occur in coastal areas of Alaska in polar bear denning
habitat, specific mitigation measures will be required to minimize
Industry impacts.
The Use of Monitoring Requirements and Mitigation Measures
Holders of an LOA must adopt monitoring requirements and mitigation
measures designed to reduce potential impacts of their operations on
polar bears. Restrictions on the season of operation (July to November)
for marine activities are intended to limit operations to ice-free
conditions when polar bear densities are expected to be low in the area
of Industry operation. Additional mitigation measures could also occur
near important polar bear habitat. Specific aircraft or vessel traffic
patterns will be implemented when appropriate to minimize potential
impacts to animals. Monitoring programs are required to inform
operators of the presence of marine mammals and sea ice incursions.
Adaptive management responses based on real-time monitoring information
(described in these final regulations) will be used to avoid or
minimize interactions with polar bears. For example, for Industry
activities in terrestrial environments where denning polar bears may be
a factor, mitigation measures will require that den detection surveys
be conducted and Industry will maintain at least a 1-mile distance from
any known polar bear den. A full description of the required Industry
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements associated with an
LOA can be found in 50 CFR 18.118. While these regulations describe a
suite of general requirements, additional mitigation measures could be
developed at the project level given site-specific parameters or
techniques developed in the future that could be more appropriate to
minimize Industry impacts.
Polar Bear Small Number Conclusion
We anticipate a low number of polar bears at any given time in the
areas the Service anticipates Industry operations to occur, and given
the size of the operations and the mitigation factors anticipated, the
likelihood of impacting individual animals is low. We anticipate that
the type of take will be similar to that observed in 2006 to 2011,
i.e., nonlethal, minor, short-term behavioral changes that will not
cause a disruption in normal activities of polar bears. In addition,
these takes are unlikely to have cumulative effects from year to year
as the response of bears will be short-lived, behavioral or
physiological responses, and the same individuals are unlikely to be
exposed in subsequent years. Overall, these takes (25 annually) are not
expected to result in adverse effects that will influence population-
level reproduction, recruitment, or survival.
Small Number Summary and Conclusion
To summarize, relative to species abundance, only a small number of
the Pacific walrus population and the Chukchi/Bering Sea and Southern
Beaufort Sea polar bear populations will be impacted by Industry
activities. This statement can be made with a high level of confidence
because:
(1) Pacific walruses and polar bears are expected to remain closely
associated with either sea ice or coastal zones, predominantly the
Russian Federation coast, where food availability is high and not in
open water where Industry activities will occur.
(2) Vessel observations from 2006 to 2011 recorded encountering
11,125 walruses, which is a small percentage of the overall walrus
population. Of this small percentage of walruses observed, only 2,448
individuals appeared to have exhibited mild forms of behavioral
response, such as being attentive to the vessel. During the same 6-year
period, 62 polar bears were observed, which is a small percentage of
the overall Alaskan population. Of this small percentage of observed
polar bears, only 20 individuals exhibited mild forms of behavioral
response.
(3) The restrictive monitoring and mitigation measures that will be
required of Industry activity will further reduce the number of animals
encountered and minimize any potential impacts to those individuals
encountered.
(4) The continued predicted decline in sea ice extent as the result
of climate change is anticipated to further reduce the number of polar
bears and walruses occurring in the specified geographic area during
Industry activities because neither species prefers using the open
water environment. This will further reduce the potential for
interactions with Industry activities during the open-water season.
In conclusion, given the spatial distribution, habitat
requirements, and applicable data, the number of animals interacting
with Industry activities will be small compared to the total Pacific
walrus and the Chukchi and Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear
populations. Moreover, not all interactions will result in a taking as
defined under the MMPA, which will reduce the numbers even further.
[[Page 35402]]
Negligible Effects Determination
Based upon our review of the nature, scope, and timing of the
proposed Industry activities and mitigation measures, and in
consideration of the best available scientific information, it is our
determination that the activities will have a negligible impact on
walruses and on polar bears. We considered multiple factors in our
negligible effects determination.
The predicted impacts of Industry activities on walruses and polar
bears will be nonlethal, temporary, passive takes of animals. The
documented impacts of previous similar Industry activities on walruses
and polar bears, taking into consideration cumulative effects, provides
direct information that the Industry activities analyzed for this final
rule are likely to have minimal effects on individual polar bears and
Pacific walruses. All anticipated effects will be short-term, temporary
behavioral changes, such as avoiding the activity and/or moving away
from the activity. Any minor displacement will not result in more than
negligible impacts because habitats of similar value are not limited to
the area of immediate activity and are abundantly available within the
region. The Service does not anticipate that these impacts will cause
disruptions in normal behavioral patterns of affected animals. The
Service predicts the impacts of Industry activities on walruses and
polar bears will be infrequent, sporadic, and of short duration.
Additionally, impacts will involve passive forms of take and are not
likely to adversely affect overall population reproduction,
recruitment, or survival. The potential effects of Industry activities
are discussed in detail in the section ``Potential Effects of Oil and
Gas Industry Activities on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.''
A review of similar Industry activities and associated impacts in
2006 to 2011 in the Chukchi Sea, where the majority of the proposed
activities will occur, help us predict the type of impacts and their
effects that will likely occur during the timeframe of these
regulations. Vessel-based monitors reported 11,125 walrus sightings
during Industry seismic activity from 2006 to 2011. Approximately 7,310
animals exhibited no response to the vessels while 2,448 of the
walruses sighted exhibited some form of behavioral response to stimuli
(auditory or visual) originating from the vessels, primarily exhibiting
attentiveness, approach, avoidance, or fleeing. Again, other than a
short-term change in behavior, no negative impacts were noted, and the
numbers of animals demonstrating a change in behavior was small in
comparison to those observed in the area.
During the same time, polar bears documented during Industry
activities in the Chukchi Sea were observed on land, on ice, and in the
water. Bears reacted to the human presence, whether the conveyance was
marine, aerial, or ground-based, by distancing themselves from the
conveyance. In addition, polar bear reactions recorded during
activities suggested that 65 percent of the bears (45 of 62 individual
bears) observed elicited no reaction at all to the human presence.
Thirty-two percent of the bears exhibited temporary, minor changes in
behavior.
Mitigation measures will limit potential effects of Industry
activities. As described above in the Small Numbers Determination,
holders of an LOA must adopt monitoring requirements and mitigation
measures designed to reduce potential impacts of their operations on
walruses and polar bears. Seasonal restrictions, required monitoring
programs to inform operators of the presence of marine mammals and sea
ice incursions, den detection surveys for polar bears, and adaptive
management responses based on real-time monitoring information
(described in these final regulations) will all be used to avoid or
minimize interactions with walruses and polar bears and therefore limit
Industry impacts on these animals. First, restricting Industry
activities to the open-water season (July to November) will ensure that
walruses reach preferred summering areas without interference and polar
bears are able to exploit sea ice habitats in active lease sale areas.
Second, MMOs on all vessels will inform the bridge when animals are
observed; identify their location and distance; and identify situations
when seismic survey shutdowns, course changes, and speed reductions are
needed to maintain specified separation distances designed to avoid
take. Third, the data collected by MMOs about encounters will be used
to refine mitigation measures, if needed. Fourth, standard operation
procedures for aircraft (altitude requirements and lateral distance
separation) are also designed to avoid disturbance of walruses and
polar bears.
We conclude that any incidental take reasonably likely to occur as
a result of carrying out any of the activities described under these
regulations will have no more than negligible impacts on walruses and
polar bears in the Chukchi Sea region, and we do not expect any
resulting disturbances to negatively impact the rates of recruitment or
survival for the Pacific walrus and polar bear populations. As
described in detail previously, we expect that only small numbers of
Pacific walruses and polar bears will be exposed to Industry
activities. We expect that individual Pacific walruses and polar bears
that are exposed to Industry activity will experience only short-term,
temporary, and minimal changes to their normal behavior. These
regulations will not authorize lethal take, and we do not anticipate
any lethal take will occur.
Findings
We make the following findings regarding this action:
Small Numbers
The Service finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to
result from the effects of the proposed activities, as mitigated
through this regulatory process, will be limited to small numbers of
walruses and polar bears relative to species abundance. In making this
finding the Service developed a ``small numbers'' analysis based on:
(a) The seasonal distributions and habitat use patterns of walruses and
polar bears in the Chukchi Sea; (b) the timing, scale, and habitats
associated with Industry activities and the limited potential area of
impact in open water habitats, and (c) monitoring requirements and
mitigation measures designed to limit interactions with, and impacts
to, polar bears and walruses. We concluded that only a subset of the
overall walrus population will occur in the specified geographic region
and that a small proportion of that subset will encounter Industry
operations. In addition, only a small proportion of the relevant stocks
of polar bear and Pacific walruses will likely be impacted by Industry
activities because: (1) The proportion of walruses and polar bears in
the U.S. portion of the Chukchi Sea during the open-water season is
relatively small compared to numbers of walruses and polar bears found
outside the region; (2) within the specified geographical region, only
small numbers of walruses or polar bears will occur in the open water
habitat where proposed marine Industry activities will occur; (3)
within the specified geographical region, the scope of marine
operations is a small percentage of the open water habitat in the
region; (4) based on monitoring information, only a portion of the
animals in the vicinity of the Industry activities are likely to be
affected; and (5) the required monitoring requirements and mitigation
measures described below will further reduce impacts.
The number of animals likely to be affected is small, because: (1)
A small
[[Page 35403]]
proportion of the Pacific walrus population or the Chukchi Sea and
Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear populations will be present in the
area of proposed Industry activities; (2) of that portion, a small
percentage will come in contact with Industry activities; and (3) of
those individuals that may come in contact with Industry activities,
less than one-third are anticipated to exhibit a behavioral response
that may rise to the level of harassment as defined by the MMPA.
Negligible Effects
The Service finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to
result from the effects of oil and gas related exploration activities
during the period of this rule in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent western
coast of Alaska will have no more than a negligible effect, if any, on
Pacific walruses and polar bears. We make this finding based on the
best scientific information available including: (1) The results of
monitoring data from our previous regulations (19 years of monitoring
and reporting data); (2) the review of information generated in
connection with listing the polar bear as a threatened species; (3) the
analysis of the listing of the Pacific walrus as a candidate species
under the ESA, and the status of the population; (4) the biological and
behavioral characteristics of the species, which is expected to limit
the amount of interactions between walruses, polar bears, and Industry;
(5) the nature of oil and gas Industry activities; (6) the potential
effects of Industry activities on the species, which will not impact
the rates of recruitment and survival of polar bears and walruses in
the Chukchi Sea region; (7) the documented impacts of Industry
activities on the species, where nonlethal, temporary, passive takes of
animals occur, taking into consideration cumulative effects; (8)
potential impacts of declining sea ice due to climate change, where
both walruses and polar bears can potentially be redistributed to
locations outside the areas of Industry activity due to their fidelity
to sea ice; (9) mitigation measures that will minimize Industry impacts
through adaptive management; and (10) other data provided by monitoring
activities through the incidental take program in the Beaufort Sea
(1993 to 2011) and in the Chukchi Sea (1989 to 1996 and 2006 to 2011).
In making these findings, we considered the following:
(1) The distribution of the species (through 10 years of aerial
surveys and studies of feeding ecology, and analysis of pack ice
position and Pacific walrus and polar bear distribution);
(2) The biological characteristics of the species (through harvest
data, biopsy information, and radio telemetry data);
(3) The nature of oil and gas Industry activities;
(4) The potential effects of Industry activities and potential oil
spills on the species;
(5) The probability of oil spills occurring;
(6) The documented impacts of Industry activities on the species
taking into consideration cumulative effects;
(7) The potential impacts of climate change, where both walruses
and polar bears can potentially be displaced from preferred habitat;
(8) Mitigation measures designed to minimize Industry impacts
through adaptive management; and
(9) Other data provided by Industry monitoring programs in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
We also considered the specific Congressional direction in
balancing the potential for a significant impact with the likelihood of
that event occurring. The specific Congressional direction that
justifies balancing probabilities with impacts follows:
If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural or
speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A
finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the
probability of occurrence is low but the potential effects may be
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts
must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species
or stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this
balancing test, the Service will thoroughly evaluate the risks
involved and the potential impacts on marine mammal populations.
Such a determination will be made based on the best available
scientific information [53 FR 8474, March 15, 1988; 132 Cong. Rec. S
16305 (October 15, 1986)].
We reviewed the effects of the oil and gas Industry activities on
polar bears and walruses, including impacts from noise, physical
obstructions, human encounters, and oil spills. Based on our review of
these potential impacts, past LOA monitoring reports, and the biology
and natural history of walruses and polar bears, we conclude that any
incidental take reasonably likely to or reasonably expected to occur as
a result of Industry activities will have a negligible impact on polar
bear and Pacific walrus populations. Furthermore, we do not expect
these disturbances to affect the annual rates of recruitment or
survival for the walrus and polar bear populations. These regulations
will not authorize lethal take, and we do not anticipate any lethal
take will occur.
The probability of an oil spill from exploration activities that
would cause significant impacts to walruses and polar bears appears to
be low during the 5-year timeframe of these regulations. In the
unlikely event of a catastrophic spill, we will take immediate action
to minimize the impacts to these species and reconsider the
appropriateness of authorizations for incidental taking through section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Our finding of ``negligible impact'' applies to incidental take
associated with the oil and gas exploration activities as mitigated
through the regulatory process. The regulations establish monitoring
and reporting requirements to evaluate the potential impacts of
authorized activities, as well as mitigation measures designed to
minimize interactions with and impacts to walruses and polar bears. We
will evaluate each request for an LOA based on the specific activity
and the specific geographic location where the activities are projected
to occur to ensure that the level of activity and potential take is
consistent with our finding of negligible impact. Depending on the
results of the evaluation, we may grant the authorization, add further
operating restrictions, or deny the authorization.
Conditions are attached to each LOA. These conditions minimize
interference with normal breeding, feeding, and possible migration
patterns to ensure that the effects to the species remain negligible. A
complete list and description of conditions attached to all LOAs is
found at the end of this document in the changes to 50 CFR 18.118.
Examples of conditions include, but are not limited to: (1) These
regulations do not authorize intentional taking of polar bears or
walruses or lethal incidental take; (2) for the protection of pregnant
polar bears during denning activities (den selection, birthing, and
maturation of cubs) in known denning areas, Industry activities may be
restricted in specific locations during specified times of the year;
and (3) each activity covered by an LOA requires a site specific plan
of operation and a site specific polar bear and walrus interaction
plan. We may add additional measures depending upon site specific and
species specific concerns. We will analyze the required plan of
operation and interaction plans to ensure that the level of activity
and possible take are consistent with our finding that total incidental
takes will have a negligible impact on polar bear and walruses and,
where relevant, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of these species for subsistence uses.
[[Page 35404]]
Further, because of our concerns over the HSWUA, we have determined
that minimizing potential disturbance to walruses during the period of
July through September, when they may be concentrated in large numbers
and heavily utilizing this food rich environment, is necessary to
ensure their continued contribution to the marine environment.
Therefore, we have also determined that, for Industry activities such
as seismic surveys and exploration drilling, it is unlikely that LOAs
issued by the Service pursuant to the ITRs would authorize take from
such activities in the HSWUA during times of high walrus use. As
individual LOA applications are received, we will examine the proposed
activities in light of the boundaries of the HSWUA, actual walrus
distributions at that time, and the timing of the proposed activities.
If the Service determines that the proposed activity is likely to
negatively impact more than small numbers of walruses, we will consider
whether additional mitigation and monitoring measures, including
seasonal and spatial restrictions, could reduce any potential impacts
to meet the small numbers and negligible impact standards. The Service
will make those determinations on a case-by-case basis.
We have evaluated climate change in regard to polar bears and
walruses. Although climate change is a worldwide phenomenon, it was
analyzed as a contributing effect that could alter polar bear and
walrus habitat and behavior. Climate change could alter walrus and
polar bear habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended duration
of open water, may preclude sea ice habitat use and restrict some
animals to coastal areas. The reduction of sea ice extent, caused by
climate change, may also affect the timing of walrus and polar bear
seasonal movements between the coastal regions and the pack ice. If the
sea ice continues to recede as predicted, it is hypothesized that polar
bears may spend more time on land rather than on sea ice similar to
what has been recorded in Hudson Bay, Canada. Climate change could also
alter terrestrial denning habitat through coastal erosion brought about
by accelerated wave action. The challenge will be predicting changes in
ice habitat, barrier islands, and coastal habitats in relation to
changes in polar bear and walrus distribution and use of habitat.
Climate change over time continues to be a major concern to the
Service, and we are currently involved in the collection of baseline
data to help us understand how the effects of climate change will be
manifested in the Chukchi Sea walrus and polar bear populations. As we
gain a better understanding of climate change effects on the Chukchi
Sea population, we will incorporate the information in future actions.
Ongoing studies include those led by the Service and the USGS Alaska
Science Center to examine polar bear and walrus habitat use,
reproduction, and survival relative to a changing sea ice environment.
Specific objectives of the project include: An enhanced understanding
of walrus and polar bear habitat availability and quality influenced by
ongoing climate changes and the response by polar bears and walruses;
the effects of walrus and polar bear responses to climate-induced
changes to the sea ice environment on body condition of adults, numbers
and sizes of offspring, and survival of offspring to weaning
(recruitment); and population age structure.
Impact on Subsistence Take
Based on the best scientific information available and the results
of harvest data, including affected villages, the number of animals
harvested, the season of the harvests, and the location of hunting
areas, we find that the effects of the exploration activities in the
Chukchi Sea region will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of walruses and polar bears for taking for subsistence
uses during the period of the rule. In making this finding, we
considered the following: (1) Historical data regarding the timing and
location of harvests; (2) effectiveness of mitigation measures
stipulated by Service regulations for obtaining an LOA at 50 CFR
18.118, which includes requirements for community consultations and
POCs, as appropriate, between the applicants and affected Native
communities; (3) the BOEM/BSEE issued operational permits; (4) records
on subsistence harvest from the Service's Marking, Tagging, and
Reporting Program; (5) community consultations; (6) effectiveness of
the POC process between Industry and affected Native communities; and
(7) anticipated 5-year effects of Industry activities on subsistence
hunting.
Applicants must use methods and conduct activities identified in
their LOAs in a manner that minimizes to the greatest extent
practicable adverse impacts on walruses and polar bears, their habitat,
and on the availability of these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
Prior to receipt of an LOA, Industry must provide evidence to us that
community consultations have occurred and that an adequate POC has been
presented to the subsistence communities. Industry will be required to
contact subsistence communities that may be affected by its activities
to discuss potential conflicts caused by location, timing, and methods
of proposed operations. Industry must make reasonable efforts to ensure
that activities do not interfere with subsistence hunting and that
adverse effects on the availability of polar bear or walruses are
minimized. Documentation of all consultations must be included in LOA
applications. Documentation must include meeting minutes, a summary of
any concerns identified by community members, and the applicant's
responses to identified concerns. If community concerns suggest that
Industry activities could have an adverse impact on the subsistence
uses of these species, conflict avoidance issues must be addressed
through a POC. The POC will help ensure that oil and gas activities
will continue to not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses.
Where prescribed, holders of LOAs must have a POC on file with the
Service and on site. The POC must address how applicants will work with
potentially affected Native communities and what actions will be taken
to avoid interference with subsistence hunting opportunities for
walruses and polar bears. The POC must include:
1. A description of the procedures by which the holder of the LOA
will work and consult with potentially affected subsistence hunters.
2. A description of specific measures that have been or will be
taken to avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of
walruses and polar bears, and to ensure continued availability of the
species for subsistence use.
The Service will review the POC to ensure any potential adverse
effects on the availability of the animals are minimized. The Service
will reject POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to ensure
that marine mammals will remain available for subsistence use.
The Service has not received any reports and is aware of no
information that indicates that polar bears or walruses are being or
will be deflected from hunting areas or impacted in any way that
diminishes their availability for subsistence use by the expected level
of oil and gas activity. If there is evidence during the 5-year period
of these regulations that oil and gas activities are affecting the
availability of walruses or polar bears for take for subsistence uses,
we will reevaluate our findings regarding permissible limits of take
and the measures required to
[[Page 35405]]
ensure continued subsistence hunting opportunities.
Monitoring and Reporting
The purpose of monitoring requirements is to assess the effects of
industrial activities on polar bears and walruses, to ensure that take
is consistent with that anticipated in the negligible impact and
subsistence use analyses, and to detect any unanticipated effects on
the species. Monitoring plans document when and how bears and walruses
are encountered, the number of bears and walruses, and their behavior
during the encounter. This information allows the Service to measure
encounter rates and trends of bear and walrus activity in the
industrial areas (such as numbers and gender, activity, seasonal use)
and to estimate numbers of animals potentially affected by Industry.
Monitoring plans are site-specific and dependent on the proximity of
the activity to important habitat areas, such as den sites, travel
corridors, and food sources; however, all Industry operators are
required to report all sightings of polar bears and walruses. To the
extent possible, monitors will record group size, age, sex, reaction,
duration of interaction, and closest approach to Industry. Activities
within the coast of the geographic region may incorporate daily watch
logs as well, which record 24-hour animal observations throughout the
duration of the project. Polar bear monitors will be incorporated into
the monitoring plan if bears are known to frequent the area or known
polar bear dens are present in the area. At offshore Industry sites,
systematic monitoring protocols will be implemented to statistically
monitor observation trends of walruses or polar bears in the nearshore
areas where they usually occur.
Monitoring activities are summarized and reported in a formal
report each year. The applicant must submit an annual monitoring and
reporting plan at least 90 days prior to the initiation of an activity,
and the applicant must submit a final monitoring report to us no later
than 90 days after the completion of the activity. We base each year's
monitoring objective on the previous year's monitoring results.
We require an approved plan for monitoring and reporting the
effects of oil and gas Industry exploration, development, and
production activities on polar bears and walruses prior to issuance of
an LOA. Since production activities are continuous and long-term, upon
approval, LOAs and their required monitoring and reporting plans will
be issued for the life of the activity or until the expiration of the
regulations, whichever occurs first. Each year, prior to January 15, we
require that the operator submit development and production activity
monitoring results of the previous year's activity. We require approval
of the monitoring results for continued operation under the LOA.
Treaty Obligations
The regulations are consistent with the Bilateral Agreement for the
Conservation and Management of the Polar Bear between the United States
and the Russian Federation. Article II of the Polar Bear Agreement
lists three obligations of the Parties in protecting polar bear
habitat:
(1) ``Take appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which
polar bears are a part'';
(2) ``Give special attention to habitat components such as denning
and feeding sites and migration patterns''; and
(3) ``Manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound
conservation practices based on the best available scientific data.''
This rule is also consistent with the Service's treaty obligations
because it incorporates mitigation measures that ensure the protection
of polar bear habitat. LOAs for industrial activities are conditioned
to include area or seasonal timing limitations or prohibitions, such as
placing 1-mile avoidance buffers around known or observed dens (which
halts or limits activity until the bear naturally leaves the den),
building roads perpendicular to the coast to allow for polar bear
movements along the coast, and monitoring the effects of the activities
on polar bears. Available denning habitat maps are provided by the
USGS.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing these final regulations for the Pacific walrus and
polar bear, we reviewed and considered comments and information from
the public on our proposed rule published in the Federal Register on
January 9, 2013 (78 FR 1942). We also considered the analysis in our
environmental assessment (EA). Based on those considerations, we are
finalizing these regulations with the following changes from our
proposed rule:
In this final rule, we have clarified:
(1) Numerical limitation on seismic and drilling operations;
(2) Geographic region subject to ITRs;
(3) Icebreaking and ice management issues;
(4) The definition and geographic delineation of Hanna Shoal as
utilized by Pacific walruses;
(5) Special mitigation measures for coastal haulouts;
(6) Special mitigation measures for HSWUA;
(7) Spacing requirements for seismic vessels and exploratory
drilling operations;
(8) Research studies and monitoring issues;
(9) The timing of activities;
(10) Helicopter height restrictions;
(11) The definition of a walrus group;
(12) Walrus Level B Harassment issues;
(13) Mitigation measures for vessel speeds;
(14) Treatment of polar bear critical habitat;
(15) Ice seal ESA listing; and
(16) Incentivizing new technology.
Summary of and Responses to Comments and Recommendations
During the public comment period, we requested written comments
from the public in order to ensure that any final action be as accurate
and as effective as possible. The comment period on the proposed ITRs
opened on January 9, 2013 (78 FR 1942), and closed on February 8, 2013.
During that time, we received 15 submissions from the public; these
included comments on the proposed rule as well as the draft EA.
The Service received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission,
State of Alaska, private companies, trade and environmental
organizations, and the general public. We reviewed all comments
received for substantive issues, new information, and recommendations
regarding these ITRs and the draft EA. The comments on the proposed
ITRs, aggregated by subject matter, summarized and addressed below, are
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. The Service has
summarized and responded to comments pertaining to the draft EA in our
final EA.
Response to Comments
1. Project Specific
Comment 1: Numerous commenters expressed general opposition to the
promulgation of the ITRs.
Response: Language within section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA requires
the Service to allow the incidental taking of small numbers of marine
mammals provided the Service has made certain determinations regarding
the specified activity; simply choosing to not promulgate regulations
is not consistent with these statutory requirements.
[[Page 35406]]
Comment 2: The ITRs appear to regulate the level of exploration
activities that could be conducted in the Chukchi Sea to 1 per year;
this is too restrictive and the level should be increased to consider
multiple simultaneous operations.
Response: The Service does not regulate the level or type of
exploration activities conducted by Industry. Instead as required by
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, the Service analyzes those activities
associated with a request by a petitioner in considering potential
impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears for the purpose of
promulgating regulations regarding the incidental take of these
species. Specifically, we have based our take estimates for these two
species on the types and levels of activities that have been described
to us in AOGA's January 13, 2012, petition.
The petition identified one seismic activity per year for the 5-
year regulatory period. However, the Service has the discretion in
conducting its analysis to assess the potential impacts that more
frequent activities may have on polar bears or Pacific walruses. We
chose to analyze the potential impacts of two seismic operations on
polar bears and Pacific walruses to make sure we did not underestimate
inputs in our analysis; this was also based on the level of activities
proposed in prior years. The text of this final rule has been updated
to explain this analysis.
Comment 3: The Service provided no science-based rationale for the
limit on the number of simultaneous operations.
Response: In most instances, the Service analyzes the potential
effects of Industry activities in the geographic region based mainly on
information presented in the petition. In this case the Service's
analysis is based on an assessment of inputs from a greater number of
annual operations than requested by the petitioners as previously
explained. Based on this analysis, the Service has determined that
issuing regulations for the incidental take of polar bears and walruses
that may result from Industry activities is appropriate. In issuing the
regulations, the Service is neither authorizing nor restricting the
actual activities that may occur. Rather, it is evaluating the impacts
from activities that may warrant incidental take authorization.
Comment 4: The regulations should identify and include the specific
types and numbers of activities upon which the Service has made its
small numbers and negligible impacts findings.
Response: As discussed in previous regulations (see 73 FR 33212;
June 11, 2008), these regulations provide petitioners an overall
``umbrella'' set of guidelines which, when followed, allow certain oil
and gas exploration activities to proceed in such a manner that
minimizes the potential incidental take of polar bears and Pacific
walruses. This ensures that no more than small numbers will be taken,
there is no more than a negligible impact on these species, and there
is no unmitigable impact on subsistence use of these species. To that
end, the Service has described the general types of activities to be
authorized, as requested by the petitioners; the projected scale of
each activity; and the anticipated impacts that could occur during the
specified time period. The regulations acknowledge that in the planning
phases, most projects contain some element of uncertainty.
Consequently, in addition to requiring certain mitigation measures
common to all projects, a separate LOA will be required for each
specific survey, seismic, or drilling activity. This allows each
specific LOA request to be evaluated for additional mitigation methods
over and above those required in the umbrella guidelines. The
regulations set forth in this final rule specify those mitigation
measures required for all oil and gas activities, as well as those
mitigation measures that may be required depending on the type or
location of the activity. Further, these regulations describe under
what conditions the various types of mitigation measure will be
required.
Comment 5: The regulations should refrain from authorizing taking
of marine mammals incidental to in-ice surveys until the Service has
either (1) proposed regulations to authorize such taking, given the
public an opportunity to comment on those regulations, and issued final
regulations that specifically authorize such taking or (2) issued an
alternative authorization for those activities (e.g., an incidental
harassment authorization).
Response: The petitioner did not request in-ice seismic programs.
As a result, the regulations do not authorize incidental take
associated with them.
Comment 6: The geographic region identified in the proposed rule
does not include the full area set forth in AOGA's petition, or
alternately offer an explanation as to why it modified the map.
Response: In the absence of specific information about where
activities are projected to occur in this area, we analyzed the effects
of potential activities in the geographic region of the prior
regulations (73 FR 33212; June 11, 2008), including the NPR-A. We will
address any activities proposed for those areas outside the geographic
region of these ITRs on a case-by-case basis, considering the use of
other potential management tools under provisions of the MMPA other
than section 101(a)(5)(A) to minimize take of polar bears and walruses.
Comment 7: The Service does not identify ``specific geographic
regions'' within which Industry activities will occur.
Response: We disagree. The specific geographic region is identified
as the Chukchi Sea, including near shore and coastal land areas, and is
described in these final regulations in the Description of Geographic
Region section. This description of the geographic region is the same
as that set forth in our proposed regulations.
Comment 8: The Service did not analyze the impact of Industry
activities in all areas where those activities will occur.
Response: We disagree. The Service's analysis encompassed the
potential impacts of the Industry activities as identified in the
petitioners' request. This analysis was unique to the specified
geographical region as discussed above.
Comment 9: The Service may not authorize takes of any marine
mammals in the Chukchi Sea until it requires Industry applicants to
disclose more specific geographical regions in which they intend to
operate during the course of the next 5 years, makes that information
available to the public, and provides an opportunity for the public to
comment.
Response: By issuing the regulations here, the Service has
considered the effects of Industry activities, as set forth in the
petition, in the geographic area described previously. Based on this
information and projected effects of these activities, the Service has
determined that no more than small numbers will be taken, the
activities are likely to have a negligible impact on polar bears and
Pacific walruses, the activities and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of those species for subsistence
use. Based on this determination, individual LOAs may be requested and
granted for activities based on a more specific description of the
nature, location, and timing of the activities provided during the LOA
application process.
Comment 10: The Service should provide a reasoned explanation for
including the coverage of the Barrow Gas Fields within the final rule
when it was not requested by the petitioners.
[[Page 35407]]
Response: We agree. The petition did not specifically identify the
Barrow Gas Fields in its request to the Service for the issuance of
ITRs. However, the petition did include a description of this area as
part of its request. Additionally, a portion of the Barrow Gas Fields
are similarly described in our ITRs issued on August 3, 2011, for the
Beaufort Sea (76 FR 47010), while the remainder is located in the
Chukchi Sea geographic region. Therefore, as part of this analysis, the
Service opted to include the Barrow Gas Fields in the event that LOAs
for activities on the Chukchi Sea side of the field are requested.
Comment 11: The Service should include accurate descriptions of
additional types of surveys, such as 4D, multi-azimuth, full-azimuth,
and/or ocean bottom seismic surveys in the proposed rule or EA so that
they are included in the scope of activities considered.
Response: We agree, and note that all activities described and
requested within AOGA's petition were analyzed in our proposed rule as
well as these final regulations, and they are discussed in the
Description of Activities section.
Comment 12: The estimated airgun array size (4,000 cubic inches)
should be increased to 6,000 cubic inches to better reflect potential
activities and to reflect the range of volumes currently used by
Industry.
Response: While Industry and government analysis standards may be
6,000 cubic inches, the petitioners only described estimated gun arrays
of up to 4,000 cubic inches in the petition. Thus, the Service only
considered the use of airguns up to 4,000 cubic inches.
Comment 13: The ITRs should not authorize Arctic ice-breaking due
to the concern of the effects ice breaking may have on climate change.
Response: These regulations do not allow ``Arctic ice-breaking'' as
the commenter suggests. This rule evaluates the potential incidental
take of polar bears and Pacific walruses by a proposed group of
activities and provides a process by which an authorization may be
obtained for such take. The petitioners did not propose ``ice-
breaking'' as an activity, but do propose ``ice management,'' which may
include some ice-breaking. As proposed by the petitioners, ice
management would consist of actively pushing the ice off its trajectory
with the bow of the ice management vessel, but some ice-breaking could
be required for the safety of property and assets, such as a drill rig.
This was considered and analyzed in the development of these ITRs.
2. Project Impacts
Comment 14: The Service should consider the cumulative impacts of
exploration, including ice-breaking, as a climate hazard, where sea ice
will be broken with icebreaker vessels deflecting ice floes from drill
rigs.
Response: The scope of climate change goes beyond this regulatory
analysis, which is to determine whether the total level of incidental
take as a result of the exploration activities proposed by the oil and
gas Industry will affect only small numbers of polar bears and
walruses, have a negligible impact on these animals, and have no
unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence use of these species. For
this analysis, the only ice breaking we analyzed is that which may
occur if a large floe needed to be deflected from Industry equipment
(including ships and drilling platforms), and whether breaking up that
floe would be necessary for success and safety. For example, in 2012,
ice management was required during a total of 7 days from August 31 to
September 13, and was limited to nine discrete isolated events. Of
these nine events, ice was broken apart only two times. Further, if ice
floes are too large, the drill rig will cease operations, secure the
site, release the anchors, and move from the site until the floe has
passed, as occurred in 2012, at the Burger A prospect, where the drill
ship was moved off-site for 10 days to avoid ice.
Comment 15: The Service needs to consider the greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) involved in exploration activities in the Arctic
region.
Response: While the Service recognizes the primary threat to the
continued existence of the polar bear is loss of sea ice habitat due to
climate change, and loss of sea ice habitat is also of concern for the
Pacific walrus, the Service addressed its position on GHG in a final
rule establishing a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA for the
polar bear (78 FR 11766; February 20, 2013). In that rule, the Service
finds that while GHG emissions are clearly contributing to climate
change, the comprehensive authority to regulate those emissions is not
found in the statutes that govern the management of marine mammals,
such as the MMPA or the ESA. The challenge posed by climate change and
its ultimate solution is much broader. Federal and State governments,
Industry, and nonprofit organizations are exploring ways to
collectively reduce GHG emissions as we continue to meet our nation's
energy needs.
The Service is working in other arenas to address the effects of
climate change on polar bears. For example, the Service's recently
released ``Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for
Responding to Accelerating Climate Change'' (http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCStrategicPlan.pdf) acknowledges that no single
organization or agency can address an environmental challenge of such
global proportions without allying itself with others in partnerships
across the nation and around the world. Specifically, this Strategic
Plan commits the Service to (1) lay out our vision for accomplishing
our mission to ``work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance
fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people'' in the face of accelerating climate
change and (2) provide direction for our own organization and its
employees, defining our role within the context of the Department of
the Interior and the larger conservation community.
Comment 16: The Service should consider potential impacts to under-
ice phytoplankton algal blooms in the Chukchi Sea resulting from ice-
breaking activities.
Response: Because activities will be conducted primarily during the
open-water period, well after any bloom may occur, potential impacts to
the under-ice algal bloom due to ice-breaking are expected to be
insignificant.
Comment 17: This regulation could negatively impact other migrating
and local species integral to the ecosystem.
Response: In this rule, the Service analyzed incidental take and
potential impacts of potential Industry activities on Pacific walruses
and polar bears. These regulations do not address the other species
potentially affected by Industry activities; those effects are
described in other agency documents, such as BOEM's Chukchi Sea
Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS). However, the specified period of open-water
operations and affiliated mitigation measures are designed to account
for the bulk of the walrus migration and will likely reduce conflicts
with other local and migrating marine mammals and birds.
Comment 18: Current noise conditions should be documented in the
arctic marine environment.
Response: We agree. However, documenting noise conditions in the
arctic is a large, complex, and expensive task. Ambient noise, vessel
traffic noise, seismic survey noises, drilling noise, ice-management
noise, etc., have been documented since 2006, through
[[Page 35408]]
ongoing cooperative studies. A study investigating baseline acoustic
and environmental noise in the Chukchi Sea is currently underway and
will continue under these regulations.
Comment 19: One commenter expressed concern that the cumulative
addition of any potential fatal impacts from oil and gas Industry
activities will push both species closer to extinction.
Response: The petition did not include, and these regulations do
not authorize, lethal incidental take of Pacific walruses or polar
bears. Nevertheless, the Service has considered a potential for
accidental death to an animal. For example, a polar bear did die in the
Southern Beaufort Sea in 2011, as a result of Industry activities.
Based on our analysis, we have determined that the likelihood of a
lethal take is small and the impact to polar bear and Pacific walrus
populations is negligible The Service is only authorizing nonlethal,
unintentional incidental take.
Comment 20: The Service did not model for an oil spill in the
Chukchi Sea. Had the Service modeled the impacts of a very large oil
spill in the Chukchi Sea, the take estimates for the permitted
activities would have been much greater, calling into question its
small numbers and negligible impact determinations.
Response: We acknowledge that an oil spill is a possible outcome of
Industry activity, and for this reason we have analyzed and discussed
potential spills and their impacts to Pacific walruses or polar bears
(see Potential Impacts of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills on
Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears). For our evaluation, we relied on the
BOEM oil spill models described in the BOEM Lease Sale 193 EIS and
Supplemental EIS, and based on our analysis we conclude that the
probabilities of a large oil spill are low. Should such a spill occur,
oil will impact any animals that come in contact with it; therefore, we
are currently working on developing an oil spill risk assessment model
specific to polar bears in the Chukchi Sea as well as updating our oil
spill response plan for Pacific walrus.
Comment 21: One commenter stated that even if the probability of a
blowout and very large oil spill in the Chukchi Sea is low, the
magnitude of the consequences of such a spill make it worthy of
consideration.
Response: The Service considered the impacts of a very large spill
to Pacific walruses and polar bears (see Potential Impacts of Waste
Product Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears).
To date, there have been no major spills associated with exploration
activities in either the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas. Large spills (>1,000
bbls) have historically been associated with production facilities or
at pipelines connecting wells to the pipeline system. It is anticipated
that during the authorized exploratory activities, adherence to the
current regulatory standards and practices for prevention, containment,
and clean-up will minimize potential adverse impacts from oil spills.
In the unlikely event of a very large spill, we will reassess the
impacts to the polar bear and walrus populations and reconsider the
appropriateness of authorizations for taking through this regulation
under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Comment 22: One commenter stated that a stronger oil spill response
plan should be developed and more research needs to be conducted on
information gaps before activities are permitted.
Response: Research efforts that may serve to enhance our
understanding of the potential response needs in the event of an oil
spill event are ongoing. For example, there are currently numerous
research projects investigating many of the ecosystem components of the
Chukchi Sea, such as the Chukchi Sea Environmental Studies Program
sponsored by the Industry, ecosystem studies funded by BOEM
Environmental Studies Program, walrus and polar bear research conducted
by USGS and the Service, and the Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine
Mammals project conducted by NMFS. The Service has used and will
continue to use both preliminary and final results of this research in
the development of ITRs when and where applicable. Also, the Service
continues to contribute to the oil spill response plans developed by
the USCG, which are continuously being improved as new information,
technology, and infrastructure becomes available.
Comment 23: With high winds and rough weather, it is quite easy for
waste products to leave the vessels and quickly pollute the surrounding
environment. This could cause further damage and interruption to the
ecosystem and the life cycle of polar bears.
Response: It is beyond the authority of the Service and the MMPA to
regulate potential accidental waste product discharge into the
environment. Waste product discharge into the environment is regulated
under other laws and permits, such as provisions of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.), among others. We have, however, taken such an eventuality into
account in our small spill analysis and have determined that there is a
low probability of such an occurrence. We have further determined that
any potential impacts will affect only a small number of polar bears
and Pacific walruses, will have a negligible impact on these species,
and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on their availability
for subsistence uses.
3. Mitigation and Monitoring
Comment 24: The Service should reconsider seasonal mitigation
procedures, including seasonal exclusions, that will be required near
coastal haulouts and, specifically, near the Hanna Shoal area because
they may result in unnecessary and burdensome exclusions from areas
located near purchased leases.
Response: The general protective measures associated with these
ITRs include limitation on Industry activities around walruses on land
or ice and are intended to prevent mortality and level A harassment
(potential to injure) resulting from panic responses and intra-specific
trauma (e.g., trampling injuries by large groups of animals). These
standards are based upon the best available information concerning
walrus flight responses to vessels and aircrafts, and are consistent
with current guidelines in other parts of Alaska. The potential for
intra-specific trauma is greatly reduced when animals are encountered
in the water. Although these mitigation measures are also expected to
help reduce incidences of Level B (potential to disturb) harassment,
they are not intended to completely eliminate the possibility of
disturbances. Required monitoring during operations is expected to
contribute data regarding flight responses, which will be used to
evaluate the efficacy of these buffer areas in future impact
assessments.
Additionally, we recognize that the Hanna Shoal area is an
important feeding area for Pacific walruses regardless of sea ice
presence or not. For example, telemetry studies indicate that animals
will travel to the region even when there is no sea ice to haulout on,
and once feeding bouts are complete, the animals will return to shore-
based resting areas. This ensures continued, undisturbed access to this
highly productive feeding area and is consistent with our determination
of minimal impacts to the overall health and well-being of the Pacific
walrus, where any potential impacts will affect only small numbers of
walruses, will have a negligible impact on them, and will not have an
unmitigable adverse
[[Page 35409]]
impact on their availability for subsistence uses.
Comment 25: The Service should define the Hanna Shoal referenced in
the rule.
Response: We agree with this comment, and text has been added to
the regulations.
Comment 26: Several commenters wanted further clarification on the
provisions for seasonal restrictions and mitigation measures on oil and
gas exploration and support activities near coastal haulout areas and
in the travel corridor between Hanna Shoal and those areas.
Response: Walruses occupying coastal haulout areas along Alaska's
Chukchi Sea coast are protected from disturbances through a variety of
measures. Currently, the Service works in collaboration with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish seasonal over-flight
restrictions, and with the USCG to establish marine buffer areas to
coastal walrus haulouts throughout Alaska. Through general guidance on
how to operate around haulouts and temporary closures, these buffer
areas help to protect and minimize disturbance to the haulouts. The
flight restrictions and approach guidelines for marine vessels
operating near coastal walrus haulouts set forth in these regulations
are consistent with those in place in other areas (e.g., Bristol Bay)
where coastal walrus haulouts develop. When a coastal haulout develops,
the Service works with the FAA and USCG to establish airspace closures
and marine buffer areas around the haulout. Haulout occupancy is
monitored in collaboration with the NSB, the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, the NMFS, and local communities. These restrictions and
monitoring remain in place until the haulout disbands, typically by
mid-October. These restrictions have proven to be effective at
mitigating disturbance events that can result in incidental injury and
mortality.
Satellite telemetry studies of walruses occupying the eastern
Chukchi Sea (Jay et al. 2012) indicate that most animals are utilizing
a haulout area 4 miles (7.4 km) north of the coastal community of Point
Lay. In addition to existing seasonal flight restrictions and marine
buffer areas specific to coastal walrus haulouts, Industry-associated
vessels and aircraft are restricted within an area of Ledyard Bay that
is designated critical habitat for the spectacled eider (66 FR 9146;
February 6, 2001); we refer to this area as the Ledyard Bay Critical
Habitat Unit (LBCHU), and it extends seaward out approximately 40 miles
(74 km) from the Point Lay haulout site. Although the operating
restrictions in the LBCHU are intended primarily to provide protection
to spectacled eiders, they also effectively serve to establish a
protective buffer area from Industry activities at the Point Lay walrus
haulout, and their migratory routes to offshore feeding areas.
Telemetry data suggest that most walrus activity occurring near the
Point Lay walrus haulout occurs in August and September in an area
encompassed by LBCHU. Aircraft and marine vessels are restricted in the
LBCHU between July 1 and November 15.
Industry activities authorized under these ITRs are also restricted
within a 40-mile (74-km) radius of all coastal communities along the
Chukchi Sea coast (including the community of Point Lay), unless
expressly provided for in a POC. Although the intent of this
restriction is to prevent interference with traditional marine mammal
hunting activities, it also provides protection to walruses hauled out
onto land or migrating through areas near the communities. The Service
will review any request to operate within these defined subsistence
buffer areas for consistency with our small numbers determination, and
our finding that authorized activities will have a negligible impact on
polar bears and walruses, and will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of these species for taking for subsistence
uses.
Comment 27: The Service should do more to affirmatively protect the
Hanna Shoal area from any activities that could disturb walruses from
prohibiting all oil and gas activities on Hanna Shoal to creating time/
place restrictions and an exclusion zone around the shoal that
precludes activity that could disturb walrus use of the shoal.
Response: The separation distances described in the Response to
Comment 26 will help mitigate impacts to walruses when at Hanna Shoal
and when moving between Hanna Shoal and coastal haulouts. In the
future, the cooperative studies to define important walrus areas within
the Hanna Shoal area will inform our management of the area. However,
to limit disturbance to walruses and to increase the effectiveness of
the MMPA provisions and protect coastal haulouts, the Service works
with BOEM, FAA, USCG, the State of Alaska, the NSB, and local
communities to limit disturbances at haulouts. In addition, the
Service's Office of Law Enforcement investigates reports of potential
MMPA violations when and where they occur.
We do not anticipate issuing LOAs for certain Industry activities
in the HSWUA during times of high walrus use in the 5-year regulatory
period. As individual LOA applications are received, we will examine
the proposed activities in light of the boundaries of the HSWUA, actual
walrus distributions at that time, and the timing of the proposed
activities. If the Service determines that the proposed activity is
likely to negatively impact more than small numbers of walruses, we
will consider whether additional mitigation and monitoring measures,
including seasonal and spatial restrictions, could reduce any potential
impacts to meet the small numbers and negligible impact standards. The
Service will make those determinations on a case-by-case basis.
However, to protect the area effectively and consistently we need
to explicitly define the boundaries of the area. As noted above, we
have defined a HSWUA based on areas most important to walruses, as
described earlier in this document.
Comment 28: The 15-mile exclusion zone associated with open-water
operations is a concept for penetration seismic operations developed by
BOEM (formerly MMS) to minimize interference among operators. However,
if there is a biological reason for this exclusion zone, the proposed
rule should reference the source information.
Response: As the commenters noted, the 15-mile exclusion zone was,
in part, originally a BOEM stipulation for separation of seismic
operations. As noted in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Chukchi Sea Planning Area (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026, May 2007),
mitigation measures such as the 15-mile exclusion zone put in place for
future exploration activities contributed to the protection of walruses
and their continued availability to subsistence hunters (OCS EIS/EA MMS
2007-026 page IV-147).
Based on our best professional judgment, we agree and find that the
15-mile buffer will ameliorate potential impacts to walrus by ensuring
a corridor for walrus to transit without experiencing take caused from
seismic or drill activities. Seismic surveys have the potential to
cause temporary or permanent hearing damage, mask underwater
communications, and displace animals from preferred habitat (Richardson
et al. 1995; Kastak et al. 2005; NRC 2003, 2005). We have determined
that the biological benefits of a 15-mile separation of activities
include: Reduction of the potential for hearing damage; reduction of
potential noise density in a single area while allowing routes and
areas for walruses to exit an area; reduction of the
[[Page 35410]]
potential number of animals exposed to multiple activities
simultaneously, or in sequence within a short period of time, thus
reducing the potential for taking of marine mammals by disturbance,
allowing for uninterrupted underwater vocal communications, reducing
the cumulative effects of operations that are in close proximity to
each other and walruses, and reducing the potential for seismic surveys
to interfere with subsistence hunters. We have, therefore, determined
that it is important, effective, and efficient to include this 15-mile
exclusion zone as a part of our mitigation measures.
This conclusion is consistent with the benefits attributed to
cetaceans by a 15-mile buffer (see Supplemental draft EIS addressing
effects of oil and gas operations in the Arctic, NOAA 2013). Further,
because the requirement of a 15-mile buffer has been in place since
publication of the 2008 Chukchi Sea ITRs and is already required by
BOEM for operational reasons, we do not anticipate it will add a
substantial burden.
Comment 29: One commenter disagreed with the Service's
characterization of ``ice scouting'' as a mitigation measure.
Response: We are not requiring ice scouting as a potential
mitigation measure rather, our intent is to require additional
mitigation measures for the activity of ice scouting, if necessary, to
minimize potential impacts to walruses or polar bears. For example, a
mitigation measure of ice scouting could be a vessel setback from any
animals observed on the ice. Although ice scouting is primarily an
operational activity within the broader exploratory programs, it does
have the potential to trigger mitigation measures. MMOs are on all ice
scouting vessels, and vessels are often requested to reduce speed and
alter course to maintain separation with walruses and polar bears when
scouting ice. In addition, because walruses and polar bears are closely
associated with the ice pack, ice scouting is valuable for identifying
floes that harbor animals and providing information for operators of
support vessels, aircraft, and drill rigs to avoid them.
Comment 30: Two commenters requested clarification of the intent of
our requirement that Industry ``track animals.'' The commenters
indicated that physically tracking animals, whether by vessel,
aircraft, or telemetry equipment, can increase harassment. The
commenters requested that the rule clarify that qualified individuals
should only ``observe'' Pacific walruses and polar bears
opportunistically and that the rule not require that mammals be
followed for the purposes of observation.
Response: The only way to determine the longer-term impacts of
Industry activities on marine mammals is to monitor impacts in some
manner. This is important in assessing whether Industry activities meet
the negligible impact requirement under the MMPA. Monitoring programs
currently detect animals at the surface in proximity to vessels to
initiate mitigation measures. Monitoring programs also document some of
the immediate reactions of animals in proximity to Industry activities.
However, we do not know the longer-term response of animals. Both of
these types of data will inform the determination of whether there is
only a negligible impact as required under the MMPA. To estimate
longer-term impacts, there is a need to be able to monitor or ``track''
animals after exposure to any given activity in some fashion. That
being said, we see this as a joint cooperative process between Industry
and the regulatory agencies. When opportunities arise, we should take
advantage of them to further our understanding of impacts to animals
and address these information gaps. The inclusion of ``tracking
animals'' in the monitoring and mitigation measures is to provide a
mechanism by which the Service may work with Industry to accomplish
this goal. Any such studies would need to be authorized under an
appropriate scientific research permit.
Comment 31: The proposed rule includes a number of new mitigation
and monitoring provisions that are either not included in current (or
previous) ITRs for the Chukchi Sea.
Response: The Service recognizes that new or adjusted mitigation
and monitoring has been included in these regulations and has added
clarifying text to the measures to better explain our reasoning for
including these new measures. It is the Service's mandate to manage and
conserve our trust species, and our understanding of potential impacts
has evolved as new information has become available regarding marine
mammals and the magnitude of Industry activities. We have and will
continue to adjust mitigation measures to help minimize impacts to
walruses and polar bears. For example, the 3,000-ft aircraft minimum
altitude restriction near coastal walrus haulouts is a modification of
a previous mitigation measure (1,000-ft altitude and 0.5 mi lateral
distance) based on new information since the time of the last
regulations. Specifically, we have found that flight altitudes of 2,000
ft disturb land-based walrus haulouts (USFWS Administrative Report, R7/
MMM 13-1, page 55); we anticipate that disturbance events will be
reduced by increasing the minimum altitude over the haulout by another
1,000 ft to 3,000 ft while maintaining the 0.5 mi lateral distance
separation. The new and adjusted mitigation and monitoring provisions
help ensure that the negligible impacts standard of the MMPA
requirement is met.
Comment 32: The Service should continue to implement the \1/2\-mile
separation requirement between Industry activities and Pacific
walruses, as stated in current regulations, rather than expanding it.
Response: The Service is continuing to implement the \1/2\-mile
restriction for walruses in the water and on sea ice. The Service has
modified the distance restriction for vessels operating near occupied
coastal haulouts from \1/2\ mile to 1 mile. New information indicates
that the 1-mile separation is needed near coastal haulouts to avoid
disturbing animals while at the coastal haulouts, particularly for
vessels 100 feet or more in length. We have based this determination,
in part, on direct observations made by haulout monitors stationed at
coastal walrus haulouts in Bristol Bay, who in turn, noted responses of
walruses to passing vessels (Jonathon Snyder, USFWS, 2012, pers.
comm.). The proposed 1-mile buffer area is anticipated to significantly
reduce the potential for haulout disturbances and mortalities.
Additionally this buffer zone is consistent with, though less
restrictive than, State of Alaska regulations (5 AAC 92.066)
establishing a 3 mile buffer zone around the ``Walrus Islands State
Game Sanctuary.'' By adjusting our protective measures to meet the
evolving requirements of walrus management, we seek to reduce stampede
events, which in turn result in walrus injury or mortality (Fay and
Kelly 1980; Ovsyanikov et al. 1994, 2008; Kochnev 1999, 2006; Kavry et
al. 2006, 2008).
Comment 33: The Service should specify in its regulations
mitigation measures that will be required for drilling operations,
shallow hazards surveys, other geophysical surveys, and geotechnical
surveys.
Response: To the best of our ability, the Service has discussed and
specified a suite of mitigation measures that will be used to mitigate
incidental take of polar bears and Pacific walruses. The Service
believes that the mitigation and monitoring measures identified in the
rule encompass the overall suite of measures that are necessary to
ensure the activities affect only small numbers of polar bears and
walruses, have no more than a negligible impact on the
[[Page 35411]]
stocks, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of these species for subsistence uses. When a request for
an LOA is made, the Service will determine which of the mitigation and
monitoring measures will be necessary for the particular activity based
on the details provided in the request. Through the LOA process, the
Service will examine the siting and timing of specific activities to
determine the potential interactions with, and impacts to, polar bears
and walruses and will use this information to prescribe the appropriate
mitigation measures to ensure the least practicable impact on polar
bears and walruses, and on subsistence use of these species. In
addition, the Service will review monitoring results to examine the
responses of polar bears and walruses to various exploration activities
and to adjust mitigation measures as necessary. We will also consider
adjusting monitoring methodologies and mitigation measures as new
technologies become available and practical.
Comment 34: The Service needs to strictly regulate and monitor all
activities, including oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi
Sea and adjacent coast of the United States, for the purposes of
ensuring that Industry activities do not harm polar bears and walruses,
and in instances where some impact cannot be avoided, to minimize such
harm to a negligible level.
Response: The regulation of activities, including oil and gas
activities, fall under a number of appropriate jurisdictions, including
permitting by BOEM, BSEE, and BLM, depending on the location of the
activity. The Service will issue LOAs for Industry activities that are
consistent with these final regulations. The Service has determined
that the monitoring and mitigation measures described in the
regulations ensure that Industry activities will only affect small
numbers of polar bears and walruses, will have only negligible impact
on the stocks of polar bears and walruses, and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species for
subsistence uses. The Service does and will continue to play a key role
in monitoring, and where appropriate, regulating such activities to
ensure disturbance is minimized.
Comment 35: Commenters suggested increasing the length of the time
period for open-water operations, seismic, and drilling programs by:
(1) Allowing for an earlier beginning of the operational period prior
to July 1; (2) extending the end date to December 31; and (3) allowing
year-round activities in the marine environment. Commenter stated that
adding specific criteria regarding the seasonal ice conditions and
distribution information allowed for such extensions.
Response: The July 1 start date was specified to ensure that the
majority of walruses utilizing the geographic area covered by these
regulations will be out of the active seismic and drilling areas prior
to initiation of these activities. In most years, sea ice will be rare
in the geographic region by July 1, and walruses will either be in
other areas of the Chukchi Sea where ice occurs or at coastal haulouts.
In those rare years when ice and walruses may remain after July 1 in
areas of Industry activities, mitigation measures will be implemented
to minimize the take of animals should activities occur near ice. In
addition to walrus considerations, some coastal communities, e.g.,
Point Lay, have requested that operations do not begin before July 1 to
avoid conflicts with subsistence activities.
Operators can request a variance to enter the geographic region
prior to July 1. The Service will analyze any requests for variances
based primarily on the location and numbers of walruses in the transit
area, as well as ice locations. Because the timing of the walrus
migration varies from year to year and is dependent on sea ice
conditions at that time, it is unlikely that we will be able to issue
any variances until the actual conditions in any given year are fully
understood. Likewise, the Service could review variance requests for
late season extensions. The Service maintains the ability to allow for
a variance for a change in timing of industrial activities based on
biological and environmental conditions. A variance will be addressed
with Industry activities on a case-by-case basis.
Comment 36: The Service should provide specific criteria regarding
the seasonal ice conditions and distribution information that will
allow for the issuance of exemptions to restrictions on (1) activities
during the open-water season or (2) transit of operational or support
vessels through the Chukchi Sea prior to July 1. Those criteria will
also be needed to determine when to apply seasonal restrictions on oil
and gas operational and support activities near coastal haulout areas
and in the travel corridor between Hanna Shoal and those areas.
Response: Our LOAs apply specific mitigation measures to specific
activities and the Service does have the flexibility, when appropriate,
to respond to changing sea ice conditions. For example, if sea ice and
walruses are not found to be in an area where exploration activities
are to occur prior to July 1, the Service may issue a variance on an
LOA that allows for such activities to commence. The Service believes
allowing activities to occur earlier could be advantageous, as it will
increase the likelihood that Industry will be able to meet its annual
goals and reduce pressure to achieve those goals as November 30 draws
closer. Because any such variance, or other action, requires a real-
time assessment of walrus densities, weather conditions, and potential
changes in conditions, which in turn, are based on actual ice dynamics,
the Service does not believe a list of potential exceptions will be
beneficial to the regulated public.
Comment 37: The proposed rule imposes a 3,000-ft height restriction
on helicopters within 1 mile of walrus groups observed on land. This
restriction is new, and is not explained in the proposed rule.
Response: This mitigation measure has been in effect for the last 3
years, but was not described in the previous rule. This mitigation
measure is necessary to protect coastal haulouts, and text has been
added to this final regulation to further explain this measure.
Comment 38: Two commenters requested that the Service exempt
unmanned aerial systems (UASs) from the requirements in the ITRs
pertaining to this type of aircraft and suggested that UAS may be used
to monitor walruses and/or polar bears.
Response: The Service does not regulate the use of UASs. The FAA is
responsible for that activity. We will not exempt UASs from aerial
requirements until more information is available on the potential for
these aircraft to cause disturbance to Pacific walruses, especially
those in aggregations, and polar bears. Further, the Service recognizes
that UASs vary greatly in size, configuration and potential uses, and
the potential for an aircraft to disturb marine mammals will likewise
vary; therefore, a blanket exemption is not prudent at this time. The
use of UASs will have to undergo rigorous evaluations and testing
before they can be approved to monitor walruses or polar bears. Once
more information is known, exceptions may be possible based on multiple
factors, such as the size of the UAS, flight distances to animals, the
reaction of the animals to the UAS, and the need to be in the vicinity
of animals.
Comment 39: One commenter stated that the approval of an
interaction plan should be eliminated or the rule needs
[[Page 35412]]
to explain who must approve the plan and how this approval is to be
obtained.
Response: The Service disagrees. The requirement for an approved
polar bear and/or Pacific walrus interaction plan has existed for many
years in prior ITRs for both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, and has
proven to be a highly effective tool for avoiding, minimizing,
monitoring, and reporting interactions between oil and gas activities
and personnel and polar bears and Pacific walruses. The Service
considers such interaction plans an important and mandatory component
for any request for an LOA. Interaction plans are reviewed and approved
by the Service as part of the process for a request for an LOA. The
Service considers this process clear as described in the regulations
(see 50 CFR 18.118(a)(1)(iii)).
Comment 40: The Service should use the term ``designated'' MMOs,
rather than ``dedicated'' MMOs.
Response: 50 CFR 18.118(a)(1)(ii) states that ``Holders of Letters
of Authorization must designate a qualified individual or individuals
to observe, record, and report on the effects of their activities on
polar bears and Pacific walruses.'' Section 18.118(a)(2)(i) states that
``Operational and support vessels must be staffed with dedicated marine
mammal observers to alert crew of the presence of walruses and polar
bears and initiate adaptive mitigation responses.'' The term
``dedicated'' is not merely a semantic interpretation of the duties of
MMOs. When an individual is trained as a dedicated MMO their dedicated
duties are to: (1) Alert crew of the presence of walruses and polar
bears; (2) initiate adaptive mitigation responses; and (3) carry out
specified monitoring activities identified in the marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plan necessary to evaluate the impact of
authorized activities on walruses, polar bears, and the subsistence use
of these subsistence resources. The MMOs must have completed a marine
mammal observer training course approved by the Service. In addition,
they should not have others duties on the vessel that may create a
conflict of interest, e.g., the captain of the vessel should not also
be an MMO.
Comment 41: One commenter felt it was burdensome to add a monitor
on-site if dedicated MMOs are on-site.
Response: The Service disagrees. The Service maintains that as a
stipulation contained within any LOA issued under this rule, we may
require a monitor on the site of the activity or onboard drillships,
drill rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other support vessels or vehicles
to monitor the impacts of Industry's activity on polar bears and
Pacific walruses. Such a monitor will be designated at the discretion
of the Service and will be independent of any MMOs. For example, a
Service law enforcement agent, wildlife biologist, or regulatory
specialist may be designated to monitor a situation depending upon the
circumstances. Given the significant expense, logistics, and technology
required to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea, the
Service fails to see how the additional presence of a monitor will be
burdensome.
Comment 42: In light of the knowledge gained in the past 5 years,
the Service should reconsider which mitigation measures and monitoring
requirements are absolutely necessary.
Response: The Service evaluated the request for this rule based on
the best available scientific evidence. The Service utilized knowledge
gained in the last 5 years, as well as that gained well beyond the past
five years. The standard by which the Service must make a determination
is not ``which mitigation measures and monitoring requirements are
absolutely necessary,'' as stated by the commenter. As set forth in 50
CFR 18.27(d), in evaluating an authorization request, if the Service
finds that mitigating measures would render the impact of the specified
activity negligible when it would not otherwise satisfy that
requirement, the Service may make a finding of negligible impact
subject to those mitigation measures. As new information is developed,
through monitoring, reporting, or research, the regulations may be
modified, in whole or part, after notice and opportunity for public
review.
Comment 43: The Service should consider the use of passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) to clear the exclusion zones associated with seismic
operations when it is not possible to do so visually.
Response: The Service considered the availability and feasibility
(economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting proposed activities or other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their
habitat, and on their availability for subsistence uses. Passive
acoustic monitoring (PAM) has been evaluated by Industry for use in the
Chukchi Sea. It is a potentially useful technology, but has not yet
been widely adopted in the Chukchi Sea due to technical limitations.
Therefore, while the Service encourages the continuing development and
testing of technologies such as PAM, we have not required its use in
these regulations.
Comment 44: The Service should reconsider the requirement to
monitor for aggregations of walruses within 160 dB isopleth because it
requires very large observation zones that are both highly questionable
given a science-based risk assessment and impractical to implement with
confidence.
Response: We agree; however, the intent of this mitigation measure
is to detect animals before they venture into the 180 dB isopleth where
temporary or permanent threshold shifts may occur. By monitoring as
much of the 160 dB isopleth as possible, MMOs on seismic vessels will
detect the majority of animals before they are potentially injured and
Industry will have adequate time to implement mitigation measures so
that potential injury is avoided.
Comment 45: The proposed rule uses the sound pressure level of 160
dB re 1 [mu]Pa (RMS) as a threshold for behavioral, sub-lethal take of
Pacific walruses. This approach does not reflect the best available
science, and the choice of threshold is not sufficiently conservative.
Response: There are no sound pressure level studies specific to
walruses of which we are aware. However, data are available for three
arctic seal species, and our use of thresholds is consistent with that
data.
Comment 46: The Service cannot rationally defend its conclusion
that proposed seismic surveys will harm no more than small numbers of
marine mammals and will have no more than negligible impacts on those
species or stocks. The Service should consider an alternative that
examines whether takes occur at sound thresholds lower than 160 dB.
Response: The 160 dB threshold is the only acoustic threshold that
has been described for pinnipeds, predominantly for seals, and our use
of these thresholds for walruses is consistent with that data.
Currently, there are no data available to analyze a different lower
limit. Damage to hearing has not been demonstrated at 160 dB, and the
160 dB isopleth defines the area in which operators must begin to take
measures (ramp down, shut down) to avoid hearing loss in walruses
(which presumably occurs at 180 dB) similar to other pinnipeds.
Comment 47: Pre-booming requirements for fuel transfer during
seismic survey operations is not possible and should be removed as a
requirement.
Response: The Service acknowledges that pre-booming for moving
vessels, such as during a seismic survey operation, is not possible.
Pre-booming
[[Page 35413]]
for fuel transfers during seismic survey operations is not a specific
requirement in this rule. It is discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of the proposed rule in the context of BOEM Lease
Sale 193 Lease Stipulations. This is a stipulation from a different
Federal agency that could potentially benefit our trust species by
minimizing impacts in the environment. This text has been revised in
this final rule to indicate that operators must operate in full
compliance with a BOEM/BSEE approved Oil Spill Prevention and Response
Plan. Proposed operations in sensitive habitat areas will be reviewed
by the Service on a case-by-case basis and may result in the
prescription of additional mitigation measures (such as pre-booming of
vessels during fuel transfers) through the LOA process.
Comment 48: The Service needs to provide a template in regards to
the raw data requirement for collecting and transmitting marine mammal
data.
Response: The Service worked with Industry to create such a
template, and this template is already in use by several operators and
their consultants in the Chukchi Sea. The Service provides the template
when issuing an LOA, and we believe the current template is sufficient
for current data collections. If new types of data are collected, the
Service will work with Industry to develop an appropriate updated
template.
Comment 49: The Service should more precisely (spatially and
temporally) tailor coastal exclusion zones to protect subsistence
activities where and when they occur.
Response: The Service disagrees. It is not appropriate to restrict
exclusion zones temporally because hunting could occur at any time of
the year. It is not appropriate to spatially restrict exclusions zones
because the Service considered the best available information
concerning walrus and polar bear hunting practices along the western
coast of Alaska adjacent to the Chukchi Sea, including discussions with
hunting boat captains and other hunters over the years in the field and
information collected through the Service Marking Tagging and Reporting
Program (harvest monitoring) in defining the 40-mile radius around
subsistence hunting communities. Additional studies will be considered
when they become available. Based on the information at hand, the
Service believes the 40-mile radius is an accurate depiction of the
open-water season area used by a majority of walrus and polar bear
hunters. A minority of hunters have reported hunting trips that include
a 60- to 70-mile one-way distance from their village.
Comment 50: The Service should develop and consider an alternative
approach with seismic survey exclusion zones based on the levels at
which received sound begins to disrupt walrus and polar bear behavior
patterns, as opposed to actually causing physiological injury.
Response: The Service is not in a position to develop an
alternative approach with exclusion zones based on the levels at which
received sound begins to disrupt walrus and polar bear behavior
patterns. This would be very hard, if not impossible, to determine for
animals in the wild. Testing of captive animals in a zoo is not
relevant for behavioral change, as aquaria conditions are unique and
confined. The Service assumes that the majority of walruses exposed to
anthropogenic sounds will leave the area. In fact, we specify seismic
ramp-up procedures to clear an area of animals before potential injury-
producing surveys can occur. Research suggests that behavioral
responses can be observed in seals exposed to 160 dB levels. However,
not all animals are disturbed at this level. In addition, these
behavioral responses are generally not biologically significant in
terms of altering the survival or reproductive potential of the
individual or the population.
4. Takings
Comment 51: It is not clear what the Service relied on to arrive at
the number ``12'' as a trigger for special regulatory protections for
walruses, and the Service has not indicated what potential biologically
significant activities might be indicated by 12 individual walruses.
Response: The number 12 is used to define a group of walruses in
the water that are assumed to be foraging or migrating. The number 12
was originally adopted in 2006, because it was consistent with NMFS'
incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) for foraging whales, which
was the best information available at that time. However, NMFS no
longer uses that standard. As an alternative, the Service reviewed the
data on Industry encounters with walruses during 1989, 1990, and 2006-
2012, and calculated the average reported group size of walruses. Group
sizes ranged from 7 to 16 walruses, with a mean of 12 (16 in 1989, 13
in 1990, and 7 from 2006-2012). Furthermore, observations of 12 or more
walruses at the surface of the water likely represent a larger number
of walruses in the immediate area that are not observed (possibly up to
70 individuals or more).
Comment 52: The best available data and information demonstrate
that all (not ``most'') of the anticipated walrus takes will be limited
to minor behavioral modifications and short-term changes in behavior,
or Level B harassment.
Response: We do not agree that it would be accurate to state that
``the best available data and information demonstrate that all (not
``most'') of the anticipated walrus takes will be limited to minor
behavioral modifications and short-term changes in behavior.'' The
Service believes that there is a small chance for some harassment to
occur beyond Level B. We note, however, that the only type of take we
anticipate to occur under these regulations is Level B harassment,
which is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has
the potential to disturb a marine mammal or stock by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including migration, breathing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Comment 53: The Service should clarify whether protecting polar
bears or walruses through intentional hazing will be authorized under
this rule during various activities, such as ice management.
Response: The proposed rule clearly states that intentional take,
also called directed take or deterrence, is not covered (50 CFR 18.116
and 18.117) under this rule. The discussion in the preamble relates to
how a situation with walruses on ice in the vicinity of a drill rig may
be managed under various authorities of the MMPA, where activities
deemed necessary to minimize potential injury to the animals could be
authorized under separate sections of the MMPA.
Comment 54: It is unclear whether the proposed rule does or does
not authorize management of ice floes occupied by walruses or polar
bears.
Response: The proposed rule would authorize the management of ice
floes occupied by walruses and polar bears. Ice floes that have the
potential to move into the path of the exploration program will be
monitored by the Industry. If any walruses are on a floe that might
need to be deflected or broken apart they will be monitored in order to
plan the appropriate time to actively manage the floe. During this time
period, incidental take of the animals may occur. In the event that
walruses remain on the ice floe(s) in question, the Service will work
cooperatively with Industry to make a determination that the floe(s)
containing walruses need to be deflected or broken up in order to
minimize damage to the drill rig or moorings. At that time, the Service
will make a determination for
[[Page 35414]]
Industry to actively (intentionally) move the walruses off the ice in a
safe manner to minimize disturbance and limit impacts to the walruses
so that the floe can be actively managed by deflecting it or breaking
it apart. This activity, the intentional take of walruses, will be
addressed under a separate provision of the MMPA. Polar bears could
also be intentionally moved in the same manner if the Service made the
determination that it was in the best interest of the animal.
The regulations also state that this will be dealt with in real
time on a case-by-case basis. For example, if a floe has to be managed
and it contains walruses, the operator will call Service personnel
before taking any action. Once the Service is apprised of the
particulars of the situation, we will make recommendations about how to
proceed, maintaining direct, real-time communication with the operator
as long as necessary.
Comment 55: The Service erroneously concludes that seismic surveys
are unlikely to cause serious impacts to polar bears because they
rarely dive below the surface. However, bears can specialize in aquatic
stalks of seals at which time they may be impacted.
Response: The Service disagrees. Polar bears do stalk seals through
the water when seals are resting or basking on floes of sea ice. Polar
bears may swim for a short period of time under water while stalking
and may encounter underwater noise created by oil and gas activities.
However, there is no indication that the mere presence of anthropogenic
noise in the underwater environment will affect the success of a hunt
by a polar bear. Ultimately the bear is approaching a seal out of
water. Although the underwater hearing characteristics of polar bears
are poorly known, the Service has no reason to believe that bears are
more prone to acoustical injury than other marine mammals.
Furthermore, polar bears, seals, ice, and excessive anthropogenic
noise have to be in the same place at the same time for a situation
such as the one described by the commenter to occur. There is very
limited ice during the open-water period, when oil and gas activity
occurs in the region, and polar bears are rarely encountered in the
water during this time period. Furthermore, there is a low probability
that seals will be disturbed from resting or basking due to
anthropogenic noise, as there is limited ice for seals to bask on at
this time, and as most oil and gas operations do not operate in or near
ice during the open-water period. Seismic surveys, for example, avoid
sea ice because of the complexity of navigating through ice and the
likelihood that the ice will interfere with the towed seismic array. In
the absence of specific data on polar bears, the Service has adopted
monitoring and mitigation standards established for other marine mammal
species. Additionally, monitoring and reporting conditions specified in
this rule require oil and gas activities to maintain certain minimum
distances from observed polar bears and Pacific walruses. The Service
believes these mitigation and monitoring measures will ensure that the
negligible impact requirement of the MMPA is met.
Comment 56: The Service has not analyzed impacts or estimated take
to either of the two distinct walrus population stocks. Further, the
Service has not even acknowledged their separate status.
Response: Currently, the Society for Marine Mammalogy recognizes
only one stock/population of Pacific walruses. This conclusion is based
on both genetic and morphological analyses of the groups that winter in
different regions and the resulting little differentiation with the
group that winters in the Laptev Sea that was previously considered a
separate population.
Comment 57: The Service fails to find that only a small number of
takes will occur and has likely significantly underestimated the number
of takes that will occur.
Response: The Service is confident that only small numbers of
walruses and polar bears will be taken by the proposed activities.
Although a precise numerical estimate of the number of Pacific walruses
and polar bears that might be taken incidental to specified activities
currently could not be practically obtained, the Service deduced that
only small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears, relative to
their populations, have the potential to be impacted by the proposed
Industry activities described in these regulations. This conclusion was
based on the best available scientific information regarding the
habitat use patterns of walruses and polar bears, and the distribution
of walruses and bears relative to where Industry activities are
expected to occur. In addition to our response, we have further
clarified our explanation of small numbers in this rule (see Summary of
Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears).
Furthermore, the Service's analysis of oil and gas activities for
this rulemaking encapsulates all of the known oil and gas Industry's
activities, as outlined in the petition submitted by AOGA, that will
occur in the geographic region during the 5-year regulatory period. If
any additional activities are proposed that were not included in the
Industry petition or otherwise known at this time, the Service will
evaluate the potential impacts associated with those projects to
determine whether a given project lies within the scope of the analysis
for these regulations. The Service has analyzed oil and gas operations
and has taken into account risk factors to polar bears and walruses,
such as potential habitat loss due to climate change, hunting, disease,
oil spills, contaminants, and effects on prey species within the
geographic region. The Service's analysis for this rulemaking also
considers cumulative effects of all oil and gas activities in the area
over time. Cumulative impacts of oil and gas activities are assessed,
in part, through the information we gain in monitoring reports, which
are required for each operator under the authorizations. ITRs have been
in place in the Arctic oil and gas fields for the past 22 years.
Information from these reports provides a history of past effects on
walruses and polar bears from interactions with oil and gas activities.
The Service used information on previous levels of impacts to evaluate
future impacts from existing and proposed Industry activities and
facilities. In addition, our cumulative effects assessment includes
research publications and data, traditional knowledge of polar bear and
walrus habitat use, anecdotal observations, and professional judgment.
Monitoring results indicate minor, short-term to no impact on polar
bears or Pacific walruses from oil and gas activities. We evaluated the
sum total of both subtle and acute impacts likely to occur from
industrial activity and, using this information, we determined that all
direct and indirect effects, including cumulative effects, of
industrial activities will not adversely affect the species through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Based on past
monitoring reports, the level of interaction between Industry and polar
bears and Pacific walruses is minimal. Additional information, such as
subsistence harvest levels and incidental observations of polar bears
near shore, provide evidence that these populations have not been
adversely affected. For the next 5 years, we anticipate the level of
oil and gas Industry interactions with polar bears and Pacific walruses
will be similar to interactions in previous years.
Comment 58: The Service lacks sufficient scientific evidence to
authorize takes of marine mammals, and where the Service has not
complied
[[Page 35415]]
with section 1373 of the MMPA, the Service may not authorize takes.
Response: The Service disagrees. The Service believes that it is in
full compliance with the MMPA in this rule. Using the best available
scientific information, the Service analyzed marine mammal data from
our agency, Industry, and other outside sources to make a determination
that the described activities in the proposed rule will affect only
small numbers of polar bears and walruses, and have no more than a
negligible impact on the stock.
Comment 59: The Service has underestimated the number of takes that
will occur due to aquatic anthropogenic sound, because it only
considered takes in the form of actual hearing injuries (e.g., hearing
threshold shifts), and failed to account for takes in the form of
behavioral disturbance.
Response: The Service did consider behavioral disturbances when
analyzing the level of take likely to occur. We believe that the
behavioral responses observed during previous Industry activities,
which were analyzed for take, were only non-injurious (Level B
harassment) takes. Further, we do not anticipate any actual injury to
animals (Level A harassment).
5. Analysis
Comment 60: The Service's conclusions are not based on the best
available science and are therefore questionable.
Response: We disagree. The Service put significant effort into
ensuring that it was using the best available scientific information
before making affirmative determinations that the incidental take under
this rule will affect only small numbers of polar bears and walruses,
have no more than a negligible impact on the stocks, and will not have
an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of those species for
subsistence uses. In addition, the mitigation measures required under
the rule further reduce the potential for negative impacts on
population or subsistence. Although the Service is actively engaged in
ongoing studies on climate change, polar bears, and walruses in the
Arctic, the Service is required to make a determination on ``best
available'' science and is not required to wait until additional
science is publically available.
Comment 61: The Service should provide its best estimate of the
numbers and types of walrus takes that could result from the proposed
exploration activities each year.
Response: This cannot be accomplished with much reliability due to
the highly variable environmental conditions (e.g., currents, winds,
sea ice dynamics, walrus migration patterns and distribution, Industry
activity levels and locations, etc.) that occur among and within years.
However, numbers of animals encountered during Industry activities in
previous years does provide an indication of the type and numbers of
takes that may be expected, which are presented in Table 3 in the
Analysis of Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry on Pacific Walruses and
Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea section of this final rule.
Comment 62: The proposed regulations do not ensure that only small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken.
Response: We disagree. Authorized activities are limited by the
operating restrictions set forth in this rule and by conditions
stipulated in LOAs. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA provides for the
incidental, but not intentional, take of small numbers of marine
mammals, provided that the total take will have no more than a
negligible impact on the populations and will not affect the
availability of the species for subsistence users. The Service believes
that potential impacts to walruses, polar bears, and the subsistence
use of these resources are greatly reduced through the operating
restrictions, monitoring programs, and adaptive management responses
set forth in this rule.
Based on observations from 2006-2010 (Table 3 in the Analysis of
Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
in the Chukchi Sea section of this final rule), we can conclude that
less than 2 percent of a population of over 129,000 walruses will be
encountered during Industry activities annually. In addition, less than
34 percent of those encounters will result in a reaction by walruses,
and few if any of these reactions are biologically significant in terms
of survival and reproduction at the individual or population level. To
help ensure that the small numbers standard is met, the Service
monitors the take of walruses and polar bears weekly as operations are
occurring and will alert Industry operators when takes may begin to
exceed small numbers.
Comment 63: The Service has not estimated existing levels of
walruses or polar bears.
Response: The Service has analyzed population estimates for
walruses and polar bears. However, there is no recent, reliable census
information for either walruses or polar bears in the Chukchi Sea
region. Furthermore, the distribution and abundance of walruses and
polar bears in the specified geographical region considered in these
regulations is expected to fluctuate dramatically on a seasonal and
annual basis in response to dynamic ice conditions. Consequently, it is
not practical to provide a priori numerical estimates of the number of
walruses or polar bears that might occur within the specified
geographical region in any given year, or to quantify, with any
statistical reliability, the number of animals that could potentially
be exposed to industrial noise during this time frame. Nevertheless,
based on other factors, such as Industry monitoring reports and agency
monitoring programs (ASAMM), we are able to deduce with a high degree
of confidence that only small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar
bears are likely to be impacted by the proposed activities based on
observations from 2006-2012. The factors considered in this finding are
detailed in the Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and
Polar Bears.
Comment 64: The Service should work independently or jointly with
the National Marine Fisheries Service and Marine Mammal Commission to
develop a policy that sets forth the criteria for determining what
constitutes ``small numbers'' and ``negligible impact'' for the
purposes of authorizing incidental takes of marine mammals.
Response: In finalizing this rule, the Service has considered what
constitutes small numbers as well as negligible impact for the purposes
of authorizing the incidental take of marine mammals. We recognize the
important contributions NMFS and the Marine Mammal Commission have made
in our agencies' requirements to implement the MMPA, and we are always
willing to discuss joint efforts where we hold a shared interest in the
conservation of species and the environment.
Comment 65: The Service fails to explain how 125 polar bears is a
``small number.''
Response: The Service's determination that 125 polar bears (25
bears annually) constitutes a small number within the meaning of the
MMPA is based on the fact the 125 polar bears is small relative to the
total abundance of the Chukchi-Bering Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea
polar bear populations, which consists of approximately 3,500 total
bears collectively.
Comment 66: The Service improperly conflates ``small numbers'' with
``negligible impacts.''
Response: We disagree. The Service's determination that the takings
are limited to small numbers was analyzed independently of its
determination that those takings will have a negligible impact. The
Service's analysis of
[[Page 35416]]
negligible impact was based on the distribution and number of the
species during proposed activities, its biological characteristics, the
nature of the proposed activities, the potential effects, documented
impacts, mitigation measures that will be implemented, as well as other
data provided by monitoring programs in the Chukchi Sea.
Comment 67: The Service has failed to prescribe methods and means
of affecting the ``least practicable adverse impact'' on the species or
stock and its habitat. It relies on mitigation measures that have been
proven to be ineffective while declining to require more appropriate
mitigation.
Response: The Service disagrees. However, the Service welcomes any
new evidence or specific information on how our proposed mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting measures have proven to be ineffective or how
they may be improved. The Service will consider such information when
provided.
Comment 68: The proposed rule fails to consider that seismic survey
vessels use the lowest practicable sound source levels, minimize
horizontal propagation of the sound signal from acoustic arrays, and
minimize the density of seismic survey track lines.
Response: The Service believes that the monitoring and mitigation
measures set forth in these regulations are necessary and appropriate
to limit disturbance and Industry impacts on polar bears and Pacific
walruses.
Comment 69: The proposed rule fails to consider a requirement that
all vessels undergo measurement for their underwater noise output per
American National Standards Institute/Acoustical Society of America
standards, that all vessels undergo regular maintenance to minimize
propeller cavitation, and/or that all new vessels be required to employ
the best ship quieting designs and technologies available for their
class of ship.
Response: The Service believes that the monitoring and mitigation
measures set forth in these regulations are necessary and appropriate
to limit disturbance and Industry impacts on polar bears and Pacific
walruses. However, many of the practices recommended by the commenter
are utilized by various Industry operators and some are required by
other agencies, regulations, and permits.
Comment 70: The proposed rule fails to consider a speed limit
(e.g., 10 knots) placed on all vessels transiting to and from a work
site, with consideration for additional limits on vessel speed when
transiting through important habitat areas.
Response: The Service does not consider a universal speed limit
(e.g., 10 knots) on all vessels to be a practicable or effective
mitigation measure. However, MMO observations of polar bears or
walruses can trigger speed reductions and other mitigation responses
from vessels.
Comment 71: The proposed rule fails to consider additional best
practices for monitoring and maintaining safety zones around active
airgun arrays as set forth in Weir and Dolman (2007) and Parsons et al.
(2009).
Response: While the Service does not adopt all the recommendations
in the references cited by the commenter, we do adopt most of them. The
mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures included in this rule are
consistent with the best practices ``for monitoring and maintaining
safety zones around active airgun arrays.'' In fact, the measures
proposed for seismic survey operations in this rule, and contained in
past ITRs, exceed the requirements of many jurisdictions elsewhere in
the world. Taken in conjunction with other regulations and permits by
other agencies, the practices for mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
for seismic survey activities in the Chukchi Sea will limit
disturbances to polar bears and walruses.
Comment 72: The proposed rule fails to consider a deferral on
exploration drilling until the concerns detailed by the U.S. Oil Spill
Commission are adequately addressed.
Response: The Service does not have the authority under the MMPA to
authorize or ``permit'' the actual activities associated with oil and
gas exploration, e.g., exploratory drilling. Rather, these regulations
only authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of small
numbers of polar bears and walruses associated with those activities
based on standards set forth in the MMPA.
Comment 73: The MMPA explicitly requires that the prescribed
regulations include other ``means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact'' on a species, stock, or habitat. Regulations must
explain why measures that will reduce the impact on a species were not
chosen (i.e., why they were not ``practicable'').
Response: Although the MMPA does provide a mechanism for the
Secretary to prescribe regulations that include ``other means of
affecting the least practicable adverse impact'' on a species, stock,
and its habitat, the regulations do not require the Secretary to
provide an explanation for measures that were determined to be
impracticable. In fact, all measures that are practicable and will
provide a means to minimize adverse impacts to the species as a result
of the proposed activities should be included in the prescribed
regulations. The Service believes it has included a full suite of means
to minimize impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears that could
result from oil and gas exploration activities. As mentioned above, the
regulations describe which mitigation measures are always required for
certain activities and which can be selectively used to mitigate Level
B harassment of polar bears and walruses. The Service adaptively
prescribes these additional mitigation and monitoring requirements
through the LOA process on a case-by-case basis because certain
mitigation measures may not be appropriate in every situation. This
adaptability allows us to implement all ``means of affecting the least
practicable impact.''
Comment 74: The Service should specify reduced vessel speeds of 9
knots or less when (1) weather conditions or darkness reduce visibility
and (2) within 805 m (0.5 mi) of aggregations of 12 or more walruses.
Response: We disagree. We recognize that MMO data indicate that
speeds are generally reduced when walruses within 0.5 mi are
encountered, sometimes to 4 or 5 knots. However, we note that ship
safety is ultimately not determined by the Service. For example,
vessels towing barges have less ability to reduce speeds and maintain
control of the tow. Therefore, while a general requirement of reduced
speed is appropriate such that Pacific walruses or polar bears are not
disturbed, we believe that the actual navigation of the vessels should
be based on prevailing conditions and the vessel operators.
6. Other Regulatory Issues and Agreements
Comment 75: One commenter supported the timely issuance of 5-year
ITRs authorizing nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take.
Response: We agree. The Service views ITRs as an important
conservation management tool for Pacific walruses and polar bears.
Comment 76: The ITRs and draft EA do not clearly explain in the
environmental consequences analyses when a seismic exposure has a
behavioral effect, whether this rises to be a countable take, and
finally whether any of this is biologically significant at either an
individual or population level.
Response: The ensonification zones are a proxy for the amount of
sound or seismic disturbance that will be
[[Page 35417]]
considered to rise to the level of biologically significant
disturbance, i.e., Level B take. All of this was considered in our
small numbers and negligible impact analysis as explained in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the proposed rule and this final
rule.
Comment 77: For seismic operations, the requirements associated
with monitoring and shutdown for aggregation of walruses is
questionable based upon the documented behavior of this species in the
2008-2013 monitoring data.
Response: We disagree. The Service applies mitigation measures in a
conservative manner, as we are tasked with trying to minimize
disturbance and impacts to animals observed and unobserved in the
water. The data indicate that for the most part, these measures are
effective, as the majority of observable walruses do not respond to
Industry activities.
Comment 78: One commenter encouraged the Service to work with the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to ``energize and return to the
MMPA's original policy ideals.''
Response: The Service and CEQ work together to ensure the
regulatory framework reflects the meaning and intent of the laws passed
by Congress.
Comment 79: The Service should facilitate the development of
conflict avoidance agreements to ensure consensus-based agreement
between potentially affected communities and oil and gas operators
regarding measures to avoid unmitigable adverse impacts on polar bears
and walruses taken for subsistence purposes.
Response: As stated in 50 CFR 18.114, the Service relies on a POC
to mitigate potential conflicts between the proposed activity and
potentially affected communities where subsistence hunting may be
impacted, rather than a conflict avoidance agreement, generally used by
NMFS to mitigate Industry impacts to their trust species. The POC is
developed by Industry and is a document that involves Industry and the
affected subsistence communities. It is included as a section of the
incidental take request packet submitted by Industry to the Service.
Within that context, the POC process requires presentation of project
specific information, such as operation plans, to the communities to
identify any specific concerns that need to be addressed. It is
impossible to develop a POC until the nature of specific projects is
identified and the concerns of the affected community are heard.
Coordination with the affected subsistence communities and development
of the POC is the responsibility of Industry; however, the Service
offers guidance during the process, if necessary. The requirements and
process for the POC, including the Services' right to review and reject
the POC if it does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that
marine mammals will remain available for subsistence use, are described
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this rule and reiterated in
the regulations.
Comment 80: The proposed regulations do not comply with the MMPA.
Response: We disagree. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA provides
for the incidental, but not intentional, take of small numbers of
marine mammals, provided that the total take will have a negligible
impact on the population and will not affect the availability of the
species for subsistence users. In accordance with the regulations,
Industry activities will be subject to the operating restrictions,
monitoring requirements, and adaptive management responses set forth in
this rule and by conditions stipulated in LOAs, which the Service
believes will greatly reduce potential impacts to walruses, polar
bears, and the subsistence use of these resources. Accordingly, the
Service believes that the take of walruses and polar bears incidental
to Industry activities satisfies the requirements of section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Comment 81: One commenter urged the Service to take a
precautionary, science-based, approach to the petitioners' request, and
specifically requested that, if the regulations are issued, the Service
include strict monitoring and oversight requirements to ensure that the
MMPA's standards are met and transparently documented to the public.
Response: We agree. The Service is committed to conserving and
managing Pacific walruses and polar bears. We believe these regulations
include the necessary mitigation and monitoring requirements to meet
all aspects of the MMPA, and the Service is committed to being a
transparent and open government agency.
Comment 82: One commenter encouraged the Service to complete an
intra-agency consultation on polar bears.
Response: We agree and completed intra-Service consultation under
the ESA on the polar bear and conference on the Pacific walruses prior
to issuing these final regulations.
Comment 83: The Service should advise AOGA of the desirability of
initiating a conference for the walrus to help fulfill its obligations
under the Endangered Species Act for the 5-year period of these final
regulations.
Response: The Service agrees with this comment. Since the notice
announcing the conclusion of the status review of the Pacific walrus
was published (76 FR 7634; February 10, 2011) and the Pacific walrus
was added to the list of candidate species under the ESA, we have
advised applicants for LOAs, when applicable and appropriate, of their
option to initiate a conference with the Service regarding Pacific
walruses.
Comment 84: The proposed rule and draft EA should be updated to
reflect recent legal developments regarding polar bear critical
habitat.
Response: We agree. We added text to this rule to acknowledge that
the final rule designating critical habitat for the polar bear (75 FR
76086; December 7, 2010) was recently vacated in Federal district
court.
Comment 85: The Service should consider restricting activities in
specific polar bear critical habitat areas.
Response: Because the final rule designating critical habitat for
the polar bear (75 FR 76086; December 7, 2010) was recently vacated in
Federal district court, critical habitat is no longer designated for
the polar bear.
Comment 86: The proposed rule does not explain that certain ringed
and bearded seal subspecies have recently been listed as ``threatened''
under the ESA. The final rule should reflect this change in status.
Response: Ringed and bearded seals are not managed by the Service,
and we do not issue take authorization for those species. However, we
are aware of the recent listing of these species, and text has been
added to this rule to explain the recent determination.
Comment 87: The proposed regulations appear to be inconsistent and
contravene both the 1973 Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears and
the 2000 Bilateral Agreement for the Conservation and Management of the
Polar Bear between the United States and the Russian Federation,
because authorizing Industry activities violates the mandates of the
these agreements to protect important polar bear habitat.
Response: We disagree. The regulations are consistent with the
mandates of both the 1973 and 2000 Agreements as set forth in Article
II of each of the agreements. Those provisions require that the United
States take actions to protect the ecosystem of which polar bears are a
part, giving ``special attention to habitat components such as denning
and feeding sites and migration patterns,'' and to manage
[[Page 35418]]
polar bear populations in accordance with ``sound conservation
practices'' based on the best available scientific data.
This rule is consistent with the Service's treaty obligations
because it incorporates mitigation measures that ensure the protection
of polar bear habitat. The anticipated LOAs for industrial activities
will be conditioned to include area or seasonal timing limitations or
prohibitions that will adequately protect polar bear habitat. For
example, 1-mile avoidance buffers will be placed around known or
observed dens, which will stop or limit Industry activity until the
bear naturally leaves the den.
In addition to the protections provided for known or observed dens,
we have incorporated considerations in the ITRs for Industry to use or
assist in use of Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) thermal imagery to
detect the heat signatures of polar bear dens. By conducting FLIR
surveys prior to initiating activities to identify potential polar bear
dens, disturbance of even unknown denning females is limited. Industry
has also used digital elevation models and aerial imagery to identify
habitats suitable for denning.
Other important protections in LOAs issued in accordance with these
final ITRs include the development of polar bear-human interaction
plans to minimize potential for encounters and to mitigate adverse
effects should an encounter occur. These plans protect and enhance the
safety of polar bears using habitats within the area of industrial
activity. Finally, as outlined in our regulations at 50 CFR
18.27(f)(5), LOAs may be withdrawn or suspended, if noncompliance of
the prescribed regulations occurs.
Comment 88: The Service must prepare a full environmental impact
statement (EIS) to meet the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Response: The regulations implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1501.4(b)
provide that, in determining whether to prepare an EIS, a Federal
agency may prepare an EA and, based on the EA document, make a
determination whether to prepare an EIS. The Department of the
Interior's policy and procedures for compliance with NEPA (69 FR 10866;
March 8, 2004) further affirm that the purpose of an EA is to allow the
responsible official to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a
``Finding of No Significant Impact'' (FONSI). The Service analyzed the
proposed activity, i.e., issuance of implementing regulations, in
accordance with the criteria of NEPA, and made a determination that it
does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. It should be noted that the Service
does not authorize the actual Industry activities, as those activities
are authorized by other State and Federal agencies. The Service merely
authorizes the take of polar bears and walruses incidental to those
activities. We note that these regulations provide the Service with a
means of interacting with Industry through the mitigation and
monitoring programs of individual projects to ensure that the impacts
to polar bears and Pacific walruses are minimized. We have determined
that the regulations will result in the nonlethal, incidental take of
only small numbers of polar bears and Pacific walruses, will have only
a negligible impact on the stocks, and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence users. As a result, we determined the
regulations will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment and, therefore, a FONSI is appropriate. Accordingly, an EIS
is not required under NEPA.
7. Additional Suggested Requirements
Comment 89: The proposed rule fails to include any measures to
require, incentivize, or test the use of new technologies in the
Arctic.
Response: The Service does not have the authority under the MMPA
nor the technical expertise to require, incentivize, or test the use of
new technologies in the manner the commenter suggests. The Service does
work with various partners to recommend the use of new technologies,
such as FLIR imagery to detect polar bears on the ice or their dens or
the use of UASs to conduct offshore marine mammal monitoring. The MMPA
does not provide specific mechanisms for the Service to accomplish this
goal, but we will work with those seeking LOAs during the regulatory
process to capitalize on existing and emerging technologies. Clarifying
text has been added to this rule.
Comment 90: The proposed rule appears to be shifting from
monitoring of existing operations to an extensive research program.
Response: As stated earlier, the type of monitoring activities
required by these ITRs has been clarified through additional
explanation. All such monitoring and reporting requirements provide us
with additional information upon which to assess the efficacy of these
regulations, our associated LOAs, and ultimately any impacts to polar
bears and Pacific walruses.
While one basic purpose of monitoring polar bears and walruses in
association with Industry is to establish baseline information on
habitat use and encounters and to detect any unforeseen effects of
Industry activities, broad-based, long-term monitoring programs are
useful to refine our understanding of the impacts of oil and gas
activities on polar bears, walruses, and their habitat over time in the
Chukchi Sea. However, a broad-based population monitoring plan will
need to incorporate research elements as well. When making our
findings, the Service uses the best and most current information
regarding polar bears and walruses. The integration of, and improvement
in, research and monitoring programs are useful to assess potential
effects to rates of recruitment and survival and to the population
parameters linked to assessing population-level impacts from oil and
gas development. Our description in these regulations is an extension
of this type of thinking.
As expressed in previous regulations, where information gaps are
identified, the Service will work to address them. Monitoring and
reporting results specified through the LOA process during authorized
exploration activities are expected to contribute information
concerning walrus and polar bear distributions and habitat use patterns
within the Chukchi Sea Lease sale area. The Service has analyzed the
results of a joint U.S./Russia walrus population survey carried out in
2006, and is sponsoring research investigating the distribution and
habitat use patterns of Pacific walruses in the Chukchi Sea. This
information will be incorporated into the decision-making process.
Monitoring provisions associated with these types of regulations
were never intended as the sole means to determine whether the
activities will have a negligible effect on polar bear or walrus
populations. There is nothing in the MMPA that indicates that Industry
is wholly responsible for conducting general population research, but
participation may be requested to help answer biological questions.
Thus, we have not required Industry to conduct such population research
and instead require monitoring of the observed effect of the activity
on polar bear and walrus. We are constantly accumulating information,
such as reviewing elements of existing and future research and
monitoring plans that will improve our ability to detect and measure
changes in the polar bear and walrus populations. We further
acknowledge that additional or complimentary research, studies, and
information, collected in a timely fashion, are useful to better
evaluate the
[[Page 35419]]
effects of oil and gas activities on polar bears and walruses in the
future.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations
We have prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in conjunction
with this rulemaking, and have determined that this rulemaking is not a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA of
1969. For a copy of the EA, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043 or contact the individual identified
above in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
On May 15, 2008, the Service listed the polar bear as a threatened
species under the ESA (73 FR 28212), and on December 7, 2010 (75 FR
76086), the Service designated critical habitat for polar bear
populations in the United States, effective January 6, 2011. On January
13, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued an
order that vacated and remanded to the Service the final rule
designating critical habitat for the polar bear. Sections 7(a)(1) and
7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1) and (2)) direct the Service to
review its programs and to utilize such programs in the furtherance of
the purposes of the ESA and to ensure that an action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of an ESA-listed species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In
addition, the status of walruses rangewide was reviewed for potential
listing under the ESA. The listing of walruses was found to be
warranted, but precluded due to higher priority listing actions (i.e.,
walrus is a candidate species) on February 10, 2011 (76 FR 7634).
Consistent with our statutory obligations, the Service's Marine Mammal
Management Office initiated an intra-Service section 7 consultation
regarding the effects of these regulations on the polar bear with the
Service's Fairbanks Ecological Services Field Office. Consistent with
established agency policy, we also conducted a conference regarding the
effects of these regulations on the Pacific walrus and the area set
forth in the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the polar
bear (74 FR 56058; October 29, 2009). In a biological opinion issued on
May 20, 2013, the Service concluded that the action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any listed or candidate species
or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The OIRA
has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainly, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
We have determined that this rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
The rule is not likely to result in a major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries, or government agencies or have
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also determined that this rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Oil companies and
their contractors conducting exploration, development, and production
activities in Alaska have been identified as the only likely applicants
under these regulations. Expenses will be related to, but not
necessarily limited to, the development of applications for LOAs,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities conducted during
Industry oil and gas operations, development of polar bear interaction
plans, and coordination with Alaska Natives to minimize effects of
operations on subsistence hunting. Compliance with the rule is not
expected to result in additional costs to Industry that it has not
already been subjected to for the previous 7 years. Realistically,
these costs are minimal in comparison to those related to actual oil
and gas exploration, development, and production operations. The actual
costs to Industry to develop the petition for promulgation of
regulations and LOA requests probably do not exceed $500,000 per year,
which is short of the ``major rule'' threshold that would require
preparation of a regulatory impact analysis. Therefore, a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required. In addition, these potential
applicants have not been identified as small businesses and, therefore,
a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. The analysis for this
rule is available from the individual identified above in the section
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Takings Implications
This rule does not have takings implications under Executive Order
12630 because it allows the authorization of nonlethal, incidental, but
not intentional, take of walruses and polar bears by oil and gas
Industry companies and thereby exempts these companies from civil and
criminal liability as long as they operate in compliance with the terms
of their LOAs. Therefore, a takings implications assessment is not
required.
Federalism Effects
This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism impact summary
statement under Executive Order 13132. The MMPA gives the Service the
authority and responsibility to protect walruses and polar bears.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
et seq.), this rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. The
Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million
or more in any given year on local or State governments or private
entities. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million
or greater in any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
[[Page 35420]]
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order
3225, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3225 of January 19, 2001 [Endangered
Species Act and Subsistence Uses in Alaska (Supplement to Secretarial
Order 3206)], Department of the Interior Memorandum of January 18, 2001
(Alaska Government-to-Government Policy), Department of the Interior
Secretarial Order 3317 of December 1, 2011 (Tribal Consultation and
Policy), and the Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, June 28, 1994, we acknowledge our responsibilities to work
directly with Alaska Natives in developing programs for healthy
ecosystems, to seek their full and meaningful participation in
evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for listed species, to
remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information
available to Tribes. We have evaluated possible effects on federally
recognized Alaska Native tribes. Through the LOA process identified in
the regulations, Industry presents a communication process, culminating
in a POC, if warranted, with the Native communities most likely to be
affected and engages these communities in numerous informational
meetings.
To facilitate co-management activities, cooperative agreements have
been completed by the Service, the Alaska Nanuuq Commission (ANC), the
Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC), and Qayassiq Walrus Commission (QWC).
The cooperative agreements fund a wide variety of management issues,
including: Commission co-management operations; biological sampling
programs; harvest monitoring; collection of Native knowledge in
management; international coordination on management issues;
cooperative enforcement of the MMPA; and development of local
conservation plans. To help realize mutual management goals, the
Service, ANC, QWC, and EWC regularly hold meetings to discuss future
expectations and outline a shared vision of co-management.
The Service also has ongoing cooperative relationships with the NSB
and the Inupiat-Inuvialuit Game Commission where we work cooperatively
to ensure that data collected from harvest and research are used to
ensure that polar bears are available for harvest in the future;
provide information to co-management partners that allows them to
evaluate harvest relative to their management agreements and
objectives; and provide information that allows evaluation of the
status, trends, and health of polar bear populations.
Through various interactions and partnerships, we have determined
that the issuance of these regulations is appropriate. We are open to
discussing ways to continually improve our coordination and information
exchange, including through the LOA/POC process, as may be requested by
Tribes.
Civil Justice Reform
The Departmental Solicitor's Office has determined that these
regulations do not unduly burden the judicial system and meet the
applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information collection requirements. We may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Information
collection requirements included in this rule are approved by the OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The
OMB control number assigned to these information collection
requirements is 1018-0070, which expires on January 31, 2014. This
control number covers the information collection, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in 50 CFR part 18, subpart I, which are
associated with the development and issuance of specific regulations
and LOAs.
Energy Effects
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule provides
exceptions from the taking prohibitions of the MMPA for entities
engaged in the exploration of oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea and
adjacent coast of Alaska. By providing certainty regarding compliance
with the MMPA, this rule has a positive effect on Industry and its
activities. Although the rule requires Industry to take a number of
actions, these actions have been undertaken by Industry for many years
as part of similar past regulations. Therefore, this rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use
and does not constitute a significant energy action. No Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
References
A list of the references cited in this rule is available on the
Federal eRulemaking portal (http://www.regulations.gov) under Docket
No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Final Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service amends part
18, subchapter B of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below.
PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS
0
1. The authority citation of 50 CFR part 18 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
2. Add a new subpart I to part 18 to read as follows:
Subpart I--Nonlethal Taking of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Incidental to Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the Chukchi Sea and
Adjacent Coast of Alaska
Sec.
18.111 What specified activities does this subpart cover?
18.112 In what specified geographic region does this subpart apply?
18.113 When is this subpart effective?
18.114 How do I obtain a Letter of Authorization?
18.115 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of
Authorization requests?
18.116 What does a Letter of Authorization allow?
18.117 What activities are prohibited?
18.118 What are the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements?
18.119 What are the information collection requirements?
Subpart I--Nonlethal Taking of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Incidental to Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the Chukchi Sea
and Adjacent Coast of Alaska
Sec. 18.111 What specified activities does this subpart cover?
Regulations in this subpart apply to the nonlethal incidental, but
not
[[Page 35421]]
intentional, take of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears
by you (U.S. citizens as defined in Sec. 18.27(c)) while engaged in
oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent
western coast of Alaska.
Sec. 18.112 In what specified geographic region does this subpart
apply?
This subpart applies to the specified geographic region defined as
the continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean adjacent to western Alaska.
This area includes the waters (State of Alaska and Outer Continental
Shelf waters) and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, which encompasses all
waters north and west of Point Hope (68[deg]20'20'' N, -166[deg]50'40
W, BGN 1947) to the U.S.-Russia Convention Line of 1867, west of a
north-south line through Point Barrow (71[deg]23'29'' N, -156[deg]28'30
W, BGN 1944), and up to 200 miles north of Point Barrow. The region
also includes the terrestrial coastal land 25 miles inland between the
western boundary of the south National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-
A) near Icy Cape (70[deg]20'00'' N, -148[deg]12'00 W) and the north-
south line from Point Barrow. This terrestrial region encompasses a
portion of the Northwest and South Planning Areas of the NPR-A. Figure
1 shows the area where this subpart applies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN13.000
Sec. 18.113 When is this subpart effective?
Regulations in this subpart are effective from June 12, 2013
through June 12, 2018 for year-round oil and gas exploration
activities.
Sec. 18.114 How do I obtain a Letter of Authorization?
(a) You must be a U.S. citizen as defined in Sec. 18.27(c).
(b) If you are conducting an oil and gas exploration activity in
the specified geographic region described in Sec. 18.112 that may
cause the taking of Pacific walruses (walruses) or polar bears and you
want nonlethal incidental take authorization under this rule, you must
apply for a Letter of Authorization for each exploration activity. You
must submit the application for authorization to our Alaska Regional
Director (see 50 CFR 2.2 for address) at least 90 days prior to the
start of the proposed activity.
(c) Your application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) A description of the activity, the dates and duration of the
activity, the specific location, and the estimated area affected by
that activity, i.e., a plan of operation.
(2) A site-specific plan to monitor and mitigate the effects of the
activity on polar bears and Pacific walruses that may be present during
the ongoing activities (i.e., marine mammal monitoring and mitigation
plan). Your monitoring program must document the effects to these
marine mammals and estimate the actual level and type of
[[Page 35422]]
take. The monitoring requirements provided by the Service will vary
depending on the activity, the location, and the time of year.
(3) A site-specific polar bear and/or walrus awareness and
interaction plan. An interaction plan for each operation will outline
the steps the applicant will take to limit animal-human interactions,
increase site safety, and minimize impacts to marine mammals.
(4) A record of community consultation or a Plan of Cooperation
(POC) to mitigate potential conflicts between the proposed activity and
subsistence hunting, when necessary. Applicants must consult with
potentially affected subsistence communities along the Chukchi Sea
coast (Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow) and appropriate
subsistence user organizations (the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the
Alaska Nanuuq Commission) to discuss the location, timing, and methods
of proposed operations and support activities and to identify any
potential conflicts with subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting
activities in the communities. Applications for Letters of
Authorization must include documentation of all consultations with
potentially affected user groups and a record of community
consultation. Documentation must include a summary of any concerns
identified by community members and hunter organizations, and the
applicant's responses to identified concerns. Mitigation measures are
described in Sec. 18.118.
Sec. 18.115 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of
Authorization requests?
(a) We will evaluate each request for a Letter of Authorization
based on the specific activity and the specific geographic location. We
will determine whether the level of activity identified in the request
exceeds that analyzed by us in considering the number of animals likely
to be taken and evaluating whether there will be a negligible impact on
the species or adverse impact on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses. If the level of activity is greater, we will
reevaluate our findings to determine if those findings continue to be
appropriate based on the greater level of activity that you have
requested. Depending on the results of the evaluation, we may grant the
authorization, add further conditions, or deny the authorization.
(b) In accordance with Sec. 18.27(f)(5), we will make decisions
concerning withdrawals of Letters of Authorization, either on an
individual or class basis, only after notice and opportunity for public
comment.
(c) The requirement for notice and public comment in paragraph (b)
of this section will not apply if we determine that an emergency exists
that poses a significant risk to the well-being of species or stocks of
Pacific walruses or polar bears.
Sec. 18.116 What does a Letter of Authorization allow?
(a) Your Letter of Authorization may allow the nonlethal
incidental, but not intentional, take of walruses and polar bears when
you are carrying out one or more of the following activities:
(1) Conducting geological and geophysical surveys and associated
activities;
(2) Drilling exploratory wells and associated activities; or
(3) Conducting environmental monitoring activities associated with
exploration activities to determine specific impacts of each activity.
(b) Each Letter of Authorization will identify conditions or
methods that are specific to the activity and location.
Sec. 18.117 What activities are prohibited?
(a) Intentional take and lethal incidental take of walruses or
polar bears; and
(b) Any take that fails to comply with this part or with the terms
and conditions of your Letter of Authorization.
Sec. 18.118 What are the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements?
(a) Mitigation. Holders of a Letter of Authorization must use
methods and conduct activities in a manner that minimizes to the
greatest extent practicable adverse impacts on walruses and polar
bears, their habitat, and on the availability of these marine mammals
for subsistence uses. Dynamic management approaches, such as temporal
or spatial limitations in response to the presence of marine mammals in
a particular place or time or the occurrence of marine mammals engaged
in a particularly sensitive activity (such as feeding), must be used to
avoid or minimize interactions with polar bears, walruses, and
subsistence users of these resources.
(1) All applicants. (i) We require holders of Letters of
Authorization to cooperate with us and other designated Federal, State,
and local agencies to monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration
activities on polar bears and Pacific walruses.
(ii) Holders of Letters of Authorization must designate a qualified
individual or individuals to observe, record, and report on the effects
of their activities on polar bears and Pacific walruses.
(iii) Holders of Letters of Authorization must have an approved
polar bear and/or walrus interaction plan on file with the Service and
onsite, and polar bear awareness training will be required of certain
personnel. Interaction plans must include:
(A) The type of activity and where and when the activity will
occur, i.e., a plan of operation;
(B) A food and waste management plan;
(C) Personnel training materials and procedures;
(D) Site at-risk locations and situations;
(E) Walrus and bear observation and reporting procedures; and
(F) Bear and walrus avoidance and encounter procedures.
(iv) All applicants for a Letter of Authorization must contact
affected subsistence communities to discuss potential conflicts caused
by location, timing, and methods of proposed operations and submit to
us a record of communication that documents these discussions. If
appropriate, the applicant for a Letter of Authorization must also
submit to us a POC that ensures that activities will not interfere with
subsistence hunting and that adverse effects on the availability of
polar bear or Pacific walruses are minimized (see Sec. 18.114(c)(4)).
(v) If deemed appropriate by the Service, holders of a Letter of
Authorization will be required to hire and train polar bear monitors to
alert crew of the presence of polar bears and initiate adaptive
mitigation responses.
(2) Operating conditions for operational and support vessels. (i)
Operational and support vessels must be staffed with dedicated marine
mammal observers to alert crew of the presence of walruses and polar
bears and initiate adaptive mitigation responses.
(ii) At all times, vessels must maintain the maximum distance
possible from concentrations of walruses or polar bears. Under no
circumstances, other than an emergency, should any vessel approach
within an 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of walruses or polar bears observed on
ice. Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, should any vessel
approach within 1,610 m (1 mi) of groups of walruses observed on land
or within an 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of polar bears observed on land.
(iii) Vessel operators must take every precaution to avoid
harassment of concentrations of feeding walruses when a vessel is
operating near these
[[Page 35423]]
animals. Vessels should reduce speed and maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-
mi) operational exclusion zone around groups of 12 or more walruses
encountered in the water. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as
to separate members of a group of walruses from other members of the
group. When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops,
vessels should adjust speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of
injury to walruses.
(iv) The transit of operational and support vessels through the
specified geographic region is not authorized prior to July 1. This
operating condition is intended to allow walruses the opportunity to
disperse from the confines of the spring lead system and minimize
interactions with subsistence walrus hunters. Variances to this
operating condition may be issued by the Service on a case-by-case
basis, based upon a review of seasonal ice conditions and available
information on walrus and polar bear distributions in the area of
interest.
(v) All vessels must avoid areas of active or anticipated
subsistence hunting for walrus or polar bear as determined through
community consultations.
(vi) We may require a monitor on the site of the activity or on
board drillships, drill rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other support
vessels or vehicles to monitor the impacts of Industry's activity on
polar bear and Pacific walruses.
(3) Operating conditions for aircraft. (i) Operators of support
aircraft should, at all times, conduct their activities at the maximum
distance possible from concentrations of walruses or polar bears.
(ii) Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, should fixed
wing aircraft operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within
805 m (0.5 mi) of walrus groups observed on ice, or within 1,610 m (1
mi) of walrus groups observed on land. Under no circumstances, other
than an emergency, should rotary winged aircraft (helicopters) operate
at an altitude lower than 914 m (3,000 ft) within 1,610 m (1 mi) of
walrus groups observed on land. Under no circumstances, other than an
emergency, should aircraft operate at an altitude lower than 457 m
(1,500 ft) within 805 m (0.5 mi) of polar bears observed on ice or
land. Helicopters may not hover or circle above such areas or within
805 m (0.5 mile) of such areas. When weather conditions do not allow a
457-m (1,500-ft) flying altitude, such as during severe storms or when
cloud cover is low, aircraft may be operated below the required
altitudes stipulated above. However, when aircraft are operated at
altitudes below 457 m (1,500 ft) because of weather conditions, the
operator must avoid areas of known walrus and polar bear concentrations
and should take precautions to avoid flying directly over or within 805
m (0.5 mile) of these areas.
(iii) Plan all aircraft routes to minimize any potential conflict
with active or anticipated walrus or polar bear hunting activity as
determined through community consultations.
(4) Additional mitigation measures for offshore exploration
activities. (i) Offshore exploration activities will be authorized only
during the open-water season, defined as the period July 1 to November
30. Variances to the specified open-water season may be issued by the
Service on a case-by-case basis, based upon a review of seasonal ice
conditions and available information on walrus and polar bear
distributions in the area of interest.
(ii) To avoid significant synergistic or cumulative effects from
multiple oil and gas exploration activities on foraging or migrating
walruses, operators must maintain a minimum spacing of 24 km (15 mi)
between all active seismic source vessels and/or drill rigs during
exploration activities. This does not include support vessels for these
operations. No more than two simultaneous seismic operations and three
offshore exploratory drilling operations will be authorized in the
Chukchi Sea region at any time.
(iii) No offshore exploration activities will be authorized within
a 64-km (40-mi) radius of the communities of Barrow, Wainwright, Point
Lay, or Point Hope, unless provided for in a Service-approved, site-
specific Plan of Cooperation as described in paragraph (a)(7) of this
section.
(iv) A monitoring program acceptable to the Service will be
required to estimate the number of walruses and polar bears in a
proposed project area.
(v) Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area (HSWUA). The HSWUA is a high use
area for Pacific walruses (Figure 2). Due to the large number of
walruses that could be encountered in the HSWUA from July through
September, additional mitigation measures may be applied to activities
within the HSWUA on a case-by-case basis. These mitigation measures
include, but may not be limited to, seasonal restrictions, reduced
vessel traffic, or rerouting of vessels. To the maximum extent
practicable, aircraft supporting exploration activities shall avoid
operating below 1,500 feet ASL over the HSWUA between July 1 and
September 30.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 35424]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN13.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(5) Additional mitigation measures for offshore seismic surveys.
Any offshore exploration activity expected to include the production of
pulsed underwater sounds with sound source levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
will be required to establish and monitor acoustic exclusion and
disturbance zones and implement adaptive mitigation measures as
follows:
(i) Monitor zones. Establish and monitor with trained marine mammal
observers an acoustically verified exclusion zone for walruses
surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received level will be >=
180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa; an acoustically verified exclusion zone for polar
bear surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received level will be
>= 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa; and an acoustically verified walrus disturbance
zone ahead of and perpendicular to the seismic vessel track where the
received level will be >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa.
(ii) Ramp-up procedures. For all seismic surveys, including airgun
testing, use the following ramp-up procedures to allow marine mammals
to depart the exclusion zone before seismic surveying begins:
(A) Visually monitor the exclusion zone and adjacent waters for the
absence of polar bears and walruses for at least 30 minutes before
initiating ramp-up procedures. If no polar bears or walruses are
detected, you may initiate ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate ramp-up
procedures at night or when you cannot visually monitor the exclusion
zone for marine mammals.
[[Page 35425]]
(B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single airgun. The
preferred airgun to begin with should be the smallest airgun, in terms
of energy output (dB) and volume (in\3\).
(C) Continue ramp-up by gradually activating additional airguns
over a period of at least 20 minutes, but no longer than 40 minutes,
until the desired operating level of the airgun array is obtained.
(iii) Power down/Shutdown. Immediately power down or shutdown the
seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic sources whenever any
walruses are sighted approaching close to or within the area delineated
by the 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa walrus exclusion zone, or polar bears are
sighted approaching close to or within the area delineated by the 190
dB re 1 [mu]Pa polar bear exclusion zone. If the power down operation
cannot reduce the received sound pressure level to 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(walrus) or 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (polar bear), the operator must
immediately shutdown the seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic
sources.
(iv) Emergency shutdown. If observations are made or credible
reports are received that one or more walruses and/or polar bears are
within the area of the seismic survey and are in an injured or mortal
state, or are indicating acute distress due to seismic noise, the
seismic airgun array will be immediately shutdown and the Service
contacted. The airgun array will not be restarted until review and
approval has been given by the Service. The ramp-up procedures provided
in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section must be followed when
restarting.
(v) Adaptive response for walrus aggregations. Whenever an
aggregation of 12 or more walruses are detected within an acoustically
verified 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa disturbance zone ahead of or perpendicular
to the seismic vessel track, the holder of this Authorization must:
(A) Immediately power down or shutdown the seismic airgun array
and/or other acoustic sources to ensure sound pressure levels at the
shortest distance to the aggregation do not exceed 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa;
and
(B) Not proceed with powering up the seismic airgun array until it
can be established that there are no walrus aggregations within the 160
dB zone based upon ship course, direction, and distance from last
sighting. If shutdown was required, the ramp-up procedures provided in
paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section must be followed when restarting.
(6) Additional mitigation measures for onshore exploration
activities. (i) Polar bear monitors. If deemed appropriate by the
Service, holders of a Letter of Authorization will be required to hire
and train polar bear monitors to alert crew of the presence of polar
bears and initiate adaptive mitigation responses.
(ii) Efforts to minimize disturbance around known polar bear dens.
As part of potential terrestrial activities during the winter season,
holders of a Letter of Authorization must take efforts to limit
disturbance around known polar bear dens.
(A) Efforts to locate polar bear dens. Holders of a Letter of
Authorization seeking to carry out onshore exploration activities in
known or suspected polar bear denning habitat during the denning season
(November to April) must make efforts to locate occupied polar bear
dens within and near proposed areas of operation, utilizing appropriate
tools, such as forward looking infrared (FLIR) imagery and/or polar
bear scent trained dogs. All observed or suspected polar bear dens must
be reported to the Service prior to the initiation of exploration
activities.
(B) Exclusion zone around known polar bear dens. Operators must
observe a 1-mile operational exclusion zone around all known polar bear
dens during the denning season (November to April, or until the female
and cubs leave the areas). Should previously unknown occupied dens be
discovered within 1 mile of activities, work in the immediate area must
cease and the Service contacted for guidance. The Service will evaluate
these instances on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate
action. Potential actions may range from cessation or modification of
work to conducting additional monitoring, and the holder of the
authorization must comply with any additional measures specified.
(7) Mitigation measures for the subsistence use of walruses and
polar bears. Holders of Letters of Authorization must conduct their
activities in a manner that, to the greatest extent practicable,
minimizes adverse impacts on the availability of Pacific walruses and
polar bears for subsistence uses.
(i) Community Consultation. Prior to receipt of a Letter of
Authorization, applicants must consult with potentially affected
communities and appropriate subsistence user organizations to discuss
potential conflicts with subsistence hunting of walrus and polar bear
caused by the location, timing, and methods of Industry operations and
support activities (see Sec. 18.114(c)(4) for details). If community
concerns suggest that the Industry activities may have an adverse
impact on the subsistence uses of these species, the applicant must
address conflict avoidance issues through a Plan of Cooperation as
described in paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Plan of Cooperation (POC). Where prescribed, holders of
Letters of Authorization will be required to develop and implement a
Service-approved POC.
(A) The POC must include:
(1) A description of the procedures by which the holder of the
Letter of Authorization will work and consult with potentially affected
subsistence hunters; and
(2) A description of specific measures that have been or will be
taken to avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of
walruses and polar bears and to ensure continued availability of the
species for subsistence use.
(B) The Service will review the POC to ensure that any potential
adverse effects on the availability of the animals are minimized. The
Service will reject POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the availability of
walruses and polar bears for subsistence use.
(b) Monitoring. Depending on the siting, timing, and nature of
Industry activities, holders of Letters of Authorization will be
required to:
(1) Maintain trained, Service-approved, on-site observers to carry
out monitoring programs for polar bears and walruses necessary for
initiating adaptive mitigation responses.
(i) Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) will be required on board all
operational and support vessels to alert crew of the presence of
walruses and polar bears and initiate adaptive mitigation responses
identified in paragraph (a) of this section, and to carry out specified
monitoring activities identified in the marine mammal monitoring and
mitigation plan (see paragraph (b)(2) of this section) necessary to
evaluate the impact of authorized activities on walruses, polar bears,
and the subsistence use of these subsistence resources. The MMOs must
have completed a marine mammal observer training course approved by the
Service.
(ii) Polar bear monitors. Polar bear monitors will be required
under the monitoring plan if polar bears are known to frequent the area
or known polar bear dens are present in the area. Monitors will act as
an early detection system concerning proximate bear activity to
Industry facilities.
(2) Develop and implement a site-specific, Service-approved marine
[[Page 35426]]
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor and evaluate the
effects of authorized activities on polar bears, walruses, and the
subsistence use of these resources.
(i) The marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan must enumerate
the number of walruses and polar bears encountered during specified
exploration activities, estimate the number of incidental takes that
occurred during specified exploration activities (i.e., document
immediate behavioral responses as well as longer term, when requested),
and evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed mitigation measures.
(ii) Applicants must fund an independent peer review of proposed
monitoring plans and draft reports of monitoring results after
consultation with the Service. This peer review will consist of
independent reviewers who have knowledge and experience in statistics,
marine mammal behavior, and the type and extent of Industry operations.
The applicant will provide the results of these peer reviews to the
Service for consideration in final approval of monitoring plans and
final reports. The Service will distribute copies of monitoring reports
to appropriate resource management agencies and co-management
organizations.
(3) Cooperate with the Service and other designated Federal, State,
and local agencies to monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration
activities in the Chukchi Sea on walruses or polar bears. Where
insufficient information exists to evaluate the potential effects of
Industry activities on walruses, polar bears, and the subsistence use
of these resources, holders of Letters of Authorization may be
requested to participate in monitoring and/or research efforts in order
to help the Service address these information needs and ensure the
least practicable impact to these resources. These monitoring and
research efforts will employ rigorous study designs and sampling
protocols in order to provide useful information. As an example,
operators could test new technologies during their activities that will
be beneficial in minimizing disturbance to animals. Information gaps
and needs in the Chukchi Sea include, but are not limited to:
(i) Distribution, abundance, movements, and habitat use patterns of
walruses and polar bears in offshore environments;
(ii) Patterns of subsistence hunting activities by the Native
Villages of Kivalina, Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow for
walruses and polar bears;
(iii) Immediate and longer term (when possible) behavioral and
other responses of walruses and polar bears to seismic airguns,
drilling operations, vessel traffic, and fixed wing aircraft and
helicopters;
(iv) Contaminant levels in walruses, polar bears, and their prey;
(v) Cumulative effects of multiple simultaneous operations on
walruses and polar bears; and
(vi) Oil spill risk assessment for the marine and shoreline
environment of walruses, polar bears, their prey, and important habitat
areas (e.g., coastal haulouts and den sites).
(c) Reporting requirements. Holders of Letters of Authorization
must report the results of specified monitoring activities to the
Service's Alaska Regional Director (see 50 CFR 2.2 for address).
(1) In-season monitoring reports--(i) Activity progress reports.
Operators must keep the Service informed on the progress of authorized
activities by:
(A) Notifying the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
(B) Providing weekly progress reports of authorized activities
noting any significant changes in operating state and or location; and
(C) Notifying the Service within 48 hours of ending activity.
(ii) Walrus observation reports. The operator must report, on a
weekly basis, all observations of walruses during any Industry
operation. Information within the observation report will include, but
is not limited to:
(A) Date, time, and location of each walrus sighting;
(B) Number, sex, and age of walruses (if determinable);
(C) Observer name, company name, vessel name or aircraft number,
LOA number, and contact information;
(D) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of
observation;
(E) Estimated distance from the animal or group when initially
sighted, at closest approach, and end of the encounter;
(F) Industry activity at time of sighting and throughout the
encounter. If a seismic survey, record the estimated radius of the zone
of ensonification;
(G) Behavior of animals at initial sighting, any change in behavior
during the observation period, and distance from the observers
associated with those behavioral changes;
(H) Detailed description of the encounter;
(I) Duration of the encounter;
(J) Duration of any behavioral response (e.g., time and distance of
a flight response) and;
(K) Actions taken.
(iii) Polar bear observation reports. The operator must report,
within 24 hours, all observations of polar bears during any Industry
operation. Information within the observation report will include, but
is not limited to:
(A) Date, time, and location of observation;
(B) Number, sex, and age of bears (if determinable);
(C) Observer name, company name, vessel name, LOA number, and
contact information;
(D) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of
observation;
(E) Estimated closest point of approach for bears from personnel
and/or vessel/facilities;
(F) Industry activity at time of sighting, and possible attractants
present;
(G) Behavior of animals at initial sighting and after contact;
(H) Description of the encounter;
(I) Duration of the encounter; and
(J) Actions taken.
(iv) Notification of incident report. Reports should include all
information specified under the species observation report, as well as
a full written description of the encounter and actions taken by the
operator. The operator must report to the Service within 24 hours:
(A) Any incidental lethal take or injury of a polar bear or walrus;
and
(B) Observations of walruses or polar bears within prescribed
mitigation monitoring zones.
(2) After-action monitoring reports. The results of monitoring
efforts identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan
must be submitted to the Service for review within 90 days of
completing the year's activities. Results must include, but are not
limited to, the following information:
(i) A summary of monitoring effort including: Total hours, total
distances, and distribution through study period of each vessel and
aircraft;
(ii) Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability
of walruses and polar bears by specified monitoring;
(iii) Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of
walrus and polar bear sightings in relation to date, location, ice
conditions, and operational state;
(iv) Estimates of take based on the number of animals encountered/
kilometer of vessel and aircraft operations by behavioral response (no
response, moved away, dove, etc.), and animals encountered per day by
behavioral response for stationary drilling operations; and
(v) Raw data in electronic format (i.e., Excel spreadsheet) as
specified by the Service in consultation with Industry representatives.
[[Page 35427]]
Sec. 18.119 What are the information collection requirements?
(a) The Office of Management and Budget has approved the collection
of information contained in this subpart and assigned control number
1018-0070. You must respond to this information collection request to
obtain a benefit pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. We will use the information to:
(1) Evaluate the application and determine whether or not to issue
specific Letters of Authorization.
(2) Monitor impacts of activities conducted under the Letters of
Authorization.
(b) You should direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any
other aspect of this requirement to the Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Mail Stop 2042-PDM, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Dated: May 30, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-13725 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P