Vol. 81 Tuesday, No. 109 June 7, 2016

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 18 Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36664 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR review. However, we cannot guarantee that Industry activities will have the that we will be able to do so. See Public least practicable adverse impact on the Fish and Wildlife Service Comments below for more information. species, their habitat, and the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: availability of these species for 50 CFR Part 18 Christopher Putnam, Marine Mammals subsistence uses; and requirements for [Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2016–0060; Management Office, U.S. Fish and monitoring and reporting. Compliance FF07CAMM00FXFR133707REG01167] Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road with the rule is not expected to result MS–341, Anchorage, AK 99503, in additional costs to Industry that it has RIN 1018–BA99 Telephone 907–786–3844, or Email: not already been subjected to during all _ Marine Mammals; Incidental Take christopher [email protected]. Persons previous ITRs for this area. These costs During Specified Activities who use a telecommunications device are minimal in comparison to those for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal related to actual oil and gas exploration, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– development, and production Interior. 800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days operations. ACTION: Proposed rule. a week. Background SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: In accordance with the Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Executive Summary U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary as amended, and its implementing In accordance with the Marine of the Interior (Secretary) the authority regulations, we, the U.S. Fish and Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as to allow the incidental, but not Wildlife Service, propose incidental amended (MMPA), and its intentional, taking of small numbers of take regulations (ITR) that authorize the implementing regulations, we, the U.S. marine mammals, in response to nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in of small numbers of Pacific walruses we), propose incidental take regulations 50 CFR 18.27(c)) engaged in a specified (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and (ITR) that authorize the nonlethal, activity (other than commercial fishing) polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during oil incidental, unintentional take of small in a specified geographic region. The and gas industry activities in the numbers of Pacific walruses (Odobenus Secretary has delegated authority for Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern rosmarus divergens) and polar bears implementation of the MMPA to the coast of Alaska. Industry operations (Ursus maritimus) during oil and gas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). include similar types of activities industry (Industry) activities in the According to the MMPA, the Service covered by the previous 5-year Beaufort Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern shall allow this incidental taking if we Sea ITR effective from August 3, 2011, coast of Alaska. Industry operations make a finding that the total of such through August 3, 2016; this rule would include similar types of activities taking for the 5-year regulatory period: (1) Will affect only small numbers of also be effective for 5 years. If this rule covered by the previous 5-year Beaufort is finalized, we will issue Letters of individuals of these species; Sea ITR effective from August 3, 2011, (2) will have no more than a Authorization, upon request, for specific through August 2, 2016, and found in proposed activities in accordance with negligible impact on these species; title 50 of the Code of Federal (3) will not have an unmitigable the regulations. We intend that any final Regulations (CFR) in part 18, subpart J. action resulting from this proposed rule adverse impact on the availability of If adopted as proposed, this rule would these species for taking for subsistence will be as accurate and as effective as be effective for 5 years from the date of possible. Therefore, we request use by Alaska Natives; and issuance of the final rule. (4) we issue regulations that set forth: comments or suggestions on these This proposed rule is based on our proposed regulations. (a) permissible methods of taking, finding that the total takings of Pacific (b) means of effecting the least DATES: We will consider comments we walruses (walruses) and polar bears practicable adverse impact on the receive on or before July 7, 2016. during proposed Industry activities will species, their habitat, and the ADDRESSES: You can view this proposed impact small numbers of animals, will availability of the species for rule and the associated draft have a negligible impact on these subsistence uses, and environmental assessment at http:// species, and will not have an (c) requirements for monitoring and www.regulations.gov under Docket No. unmitigable adverse impact on the reporting. FWS–R7–ES–2016–0060. You may availability of these species for If regulations allowing such submit comments on the proposed rule subsistence use by Alaska Natives. We incidental taking are issued, we may by one of the following methods: base our finding on data from then subsequently issue Letters of • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public monitoring the encounters and Authorization (LOAs), upon request, to Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. interactions between these species and authorize incidental take during FWS–R7–ES–2016–0060, Division of Industry; research on these species; oil specified activities. Policy, Performance, and Management spill risk assessments; potential and The term ‘‘take,’’ as defined by the Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife documented Industry effects on these MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, species; information regarding the or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. natural history and conservation status capture, or kill any marine mammal. • Electronic submission: Federal of walruses and polar bears; and data Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, eRulemaking Portal at: http:// reported from Alaska Native subsistence for activities other than military www.regulations.gov. Follow the hunters. We have prepared a draft readiness activities or scientific research instructions for submitting comments to environmental assessment (EA) in conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2016–0060. conjunction with this rulemaking, and it Government, means ‘‘any act of pursuit, We will post all comments at http:// is available for public review. torment, or annoyance which (i) has the www.regulations.gov. You may request The proposed regulations include potential to injure a marine mammal or that we withhold all personal permissible methods of nonlethal marine mammal stock in the wild’’ (the identifying information from public taking; mitigation measures to ensure MMPA calls this Level A harassment);

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36665

or ‘‘(ii) has the potential to disturb a walruses and polar bears in specified subsistence use. The information marine mammal or marine mammal areas during specified activities. For a provided by the petitioners indicates stock in the wild by causing disruption detailed history of our recent Beaufort that projected oil and gas activities over of behavioral patterns, including, but Sea ITRs, refer to the Federal Register this period will encompass onshore and not limited to, migration, breathing, at, 76 FR 47010, August 3, 2011; 71 FR offshore exploration, development, and nursing, breeding, feeding, or 43926, August 2, 2006; and 68 FR production activities. The Service’s task sheltering’’ (the MMPA calls this Level 66744, November 28, 2003. These is to analyze the impacts that the B harassment). regulations are at 50 CFR part 18, proposed lawful activities will have on The terms ‘‘negligible impact’’ and subpart J (§§ 18.121 to 18.129). walruses and polar bears. In addition, ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ are we will evaluate the potential for oil Summary of Current Request defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., spills and associated impacts on regulations governing small takes of On May 5, 2014, the Service received walruses and polar bears. marine mammals incidental to specified a petition from the Alaska Oil and Gas activities) as follows. ‘‘Negligible Association (AOGA) on behalf of its Description of Proposed Regulations impact’’ is an impact resulting from the members and other participating These proposed regulations will not specified activity that cannot be companies to promulgate regulations for authorize, or ‘‘permit,’’ the proposed reasonably expected to, and is not nonlethal incidental take of small Industry activities. Rather, they will reasonably likely to, adversely affect the numbers of walruses and polar bears in authorize the nonlethal incidental, species or stock through effects on the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern unintentional take of small numbers of annual rates of recruitment or survival. coast of Alaska for a period of 5 years walruses and polar bears associated ‘‘Unmitigable adverse impact’’ means an (2016–2021). The anticipated incidental with those activities based on standards impact resulting from the specified takes would be limited to Level B set forth in the MMPA. The Bureau of activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the harassment. We received an amendment Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the availability of the species to a level to the petition on July 1, 2015. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental insufficient for a harvest to meet petition and previous regulations are Enforcement (BSEE), the U.S. Army subsistence needs by (i) causing the available at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/ Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of marine mammals to abandon or avoid fisheries/mmm/itr_beaufort.htm. The Land Management (BLM) are hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing petition is also available at responsible for permitting activities subsistence users, or (iii) placing www.regulations.gov at Docket No. associated with Industry activities in physical barriers between the marine FWS–R7–ES–2016–0060. Federal waters and on Federal lands. mammals and the subsistence hunters; The AOGA application requests The State of Alaska is responsible for and (2) that cannot be sufficiently regulations that will be applicable to permitting Industry activities on State mitigated by other measures to increase any company conducting oil and gas lands and in State waters. The proposed the availability of marine mammals to exploration, development, and regulations include: allow subsistence needs to be met. Also production activities as described • Permissible methods of nonlethal defined in 50 CFR 18.27 is the term within the application. This includes taking; ‘‘small numbers,’’ however, we do not AOGA members and other non-member • Measures to ensure the least rely on that definition here as it companies planning to conduct oil and practicable adverse impact on walruses conflates ‘‘small numbers’’ with gas operations in the specified and polar bears and the availability of ‘‘negligible impacts.’’ We recognize geographic region. Members of AOGA these species for subsistence uses; and ‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘negligible represented in the petition include • Requirements for monitoring and impacts’’ as two separate and distinct Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, reporting. Apache Corporation, BP Exploration requirements for promulgating ITRs Description of LOAs under the MMPA. Instead, for our small (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA), Caelus Energy numbers determination, we estimate the Alaska, LLC, Chevron USA, Inc., Eni If these proposed ITRs are made final, likely number of takes of marine Petroleum; ExxonMobil Production companies, groups, or individuals mammals, and evaluate if that take is Company, Flint Hills Resources, Inc., conducting an Industry, or other small relative to the size of the Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, Petro Star Inc., substantially similar, activity within the population or stock. Repsol, Shell Exploration & Production specified geographic region may request In these proposed ITRs, the term Company (Shell), Statoil, Tesoro Alaska an LOA for the authorized nonlethal, ‘‘Industry’’ includes individuals, Company, and XTO Energy, Inc. incidental, Level B take of walruses and companies, and organizations involved Non-AOGA companies include polar bears. We must receive requests in exploration, development, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI), for LOAs in writing at least 90 days production, extraction, processing, Brooks Range Petroleum Corporation before the proposed activity is to begin. transportation, marketing, research, (BRPC), and Arctic Slope Regional Requests must include an operations monitoring, and support services of Corporation (ASRC) Energy Services. plan for the activity, a walrus and polar petroleum products, and other The activities and geographic region bear interaction plan, and a site-specific substantially similar activities. Industry specified in AOGA’s request, and marine mammal monitoring and activities may result in the taking of considered in these regulations, are mitigation plan that specifies the walruses and polar bears. The MMPA described in the following sections procedures to monitor and mitigate the does not require that Industry must titled Description of Activities and effects of the proposed activities on obtain incidental take authorization; Description of Geographic Region. walruses and polar bears. We will however, any taking that occurs without In response to this request, prior to evaluate each request for an LOA, authorization is a violation of the issuing regulations at 50 CFR part 18 including plans of operation and MMPA. Since 1993, the oil and gas subpart J, we have evaluated the level of interaction plans, based on the proposed industry operating in the Beaufort Sea proposed activities, their associated activity and location. We will condition and the adjacent northern coast of potential effects upon walruses and each LOA depending on specific Alaska has requested, and we have polar bears, and their effects on the circumstances for the proposed activity issued, ITRs for the incidental take of availability of these species for and location to ensure the activity and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36666 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

level of take are consistent with our will not accept POCs if they fail to activities prior to receiving an LOA. findings in the ITRs. We will issue an provide adequate measures to ensure Requests for LOAs for activities and LOA if we evaluated the proposed that Industry activities will not have an impacts that exceed the scope of activity in the ITRs and the level of take unmitigable adverse impact on the analysis and determinations for these caused by the activity is consistent with availability of walruses and polar bears proposed ITRs will not be issued. the findings of the ITRs. We must for subsistence uses. Additional information is available in receive an after action report on the the AOGA petition for ITRs at: http:// Description of Geographic Region monitoring and mitigation activities www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/ within 90 days after the LOA expires. The geographic region covered by the Beaufort_Sea/Beaufort%20Sea%20ITR The monitoring and mitigation requested ITRs (Beaufort Sea ITR region %20Petition_2015.pdf and at conditions included in each LOA will (Figure 1)) encompasses all Beaufort Sea www.regulations.gov in Docket No. minimize interference with the normal waters east of a north-south line through FWS–R7–ES–2016–0060. behavior and movements of walruses Point Barrow, Alaska (71°23′29″ N., and polar bears to ensure that the effects ¥156 °28′30″ W., BGN 1944), and Exploration Activities of Industry activity are negligible. For extending approximately 322 kilometers In the Beaufort Sea ITR region, oil and example, conditions include, but are not (km) (∼200 miles (mi)) north, including gas exploration occurs onshore, in limited to: (1) A reminder that LOAs do all Alaska State waters and Outer coastal areas, and in the offshore not authorize intentional taking of Continental Shelf (OCS) waters, and east environment. Exploration activities may walruses or polar bears, nor lethal of that line to the Canadian border. The include geological and geophysical incidental take; (2) measures to protect offshore boundary of the Beaufort Sea surveys consisting of: Geotechnical site pregnant polar bears during denning ITR region matches the boundary of the investigations, reflective seismic activities (e.g., den selection, birthing, BOEM Beaufort Sea Planning area, exploration, vibratory seismic data nurturing of cubs, and departing the den approximately 322 km (∼200 mi) collection, airgun and water gun seismic site); and (3) the requirement of a site- offshore. The onshore region is the same data collection, explosive seismic data specific plan of operation and a site- north/south line through Point Barrow, collection, vertical seismic profiling, specific interaction plan. For more extending 40.2 km (25 mi) inland and and subsea sediment sampling. information on requesting and receiving east to the Canning River. The Arctic Exploratory drilling involves an LOA, refer to 50 CFR 18.27. National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not construction and use of drilling included in the Beaufort Sea ITR region. structures such as caisson-retained Description of Plans of Cooperation The geographical extent of the proposed islands, ice islands, bottom-supported (POCs) Beaufort Sea ITR region (approximately or bottom-founded structures such as A POC is a documented plan with 29.8 million hectares (ha) (∼73.6 million the steel drilling caisson, or floating potentially affected subsistence hunting acres (ac))) is similar to the region drill vessels. Exploratory drilling and communities that describes measures to covered in previous regulations associated support activities and mitigate potential conflicts between (approximately 29.9 million ha (∼68.9 features may include: Transportation to proposed Industry activities and million ac)) (76 FR 47010, August 3, site; setup and relocation of lodging subsistence hunting. To ensure that 2011). An increase in the geographic camps and support facilities (such as Industry activities do not adversely area of the proposed Beaufort Sea ITR lights, generators, snow removal, water impact subsistence hunting region versus the region set forth in plants, wastewater plants, dining halls, opportunities, applicants requesting an previous ITRs (approximately 1.9 sleeping quarters, mechanical shops, LOA must provide the Service million ha (∼4.7 million ac)) is the result fuel storage, landing strips, aircraft documentation of communication and of matching the offshore boundary with support, health and safety facilities, data coordination with potentially affected that of the BOEM Beaufort Sea Planning recording facilities, and communication Alaska Native communities potentially area boundary. equipment); building gravel pads; affected by the proposed Industry building gravel islands with sandbag Description of Activities activity and, as appropriate, with the and concrete block protection; Eskimo Walrus Commission, the Alaska This section summarizes the type and construction of ice islands, pads, and Nanuuq Commission (ANC), and the scale of Industry activities proposed to ice roads; gravel hauling; gravel mining; North Slope Borough (NSB). As part of occur in the Beaufort Sea ITR region road building; road maintenance; the POC process, Industry from 2016 to 2021. Year-round onshore operating heavy equipment; digging representatives engage with Native and offshore Industry activities are trenches; burying and covering communities to provide information anticipated. Planned and potential pipelines; security operations; dredging; and respond to questions and concerns. activities considered in our analysis moving floating drill units; helicopter Industry representatives inquire include activities described by the support; and conducting ice, water, and whether their proposed activities will petitioners (AES Alaska 2015) and other flood management. Support facilities adversely affect the availability of potential activities identified by the include pipelines, electrical lines, water walruses and polar bears for subsistence Service and deemed substantially lines, buildings and facilities, sea lifts, use. If community concerns suggest that similar to the activities requested in the and large and small vessels. Exploration Industry activities may have an impact petition. During the 5 years that the activities could also include the on the subsistence uses of these species, proposed ITRs will be in place, Industry development of staging facilities; oil the POC must document the procedures activities are expected to be generally spill prevention, response, and cleanup for how Industry will cooperate with the similar in type, timing, and effect to activities; and site restoration and affected subsistence communities and activities that have been evaluated remediation. The level of proposed what actions Industry will take to under the prior ITRs. Due to the large exploration activities is similar to levels mitigate adverse impacts on the number of variables affecting Industry during past regulatory periods, although availability of walruses and polar bears activities, prediction of exact dates and exploration projects may shift to for subsistence uses. We will review locations of activities is not possible. different locations, particularly to the these plans and provide guidance to However, operators must provide National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska ensure compliance with the MMPA. We specific dates and locations of proposed (NPR–A). During the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36667

regulatory period, exploration activities 4.7 million ha (∼11.8 million ac) for oil Development Activities are anticipated to occur in the offshore and gas leasing (BLM 2013a). Between Industry operations during oil and gas environment and to continue in the 1999 and 2014, 2.1 million ha (5.1- development may include construction existing oilfield units. million ac) were sold in 10 lease sales. of roads, pipelines, waterlines, gravel BOEM Outer Continental Shelf Lease As of January 2015, there were 205 pads, work camps (personnel, dining, Sales leases amounting to over 0.6 million ha lodging, and maintenance facilities), (1.7 million ac) leased (BLM 2015). water production and wastewater BOEM manages oil and gas leases in From 2000 to 2013, Industry drilled 29 the Alaska OCS region, which treatment facilities, runways, and other wells in federally managed portions of support infrastructure. Activities encompasses 242 million ha (600 the NPR–A and 3 in adjacent Native million ac). Of that acreage, associated with the development phase lands (BLM 2013b). ConocoPhillips approximately 26 million ha (∼65 include transportation activities Alaska, Inc. (CPAI) currently holds a million ac) are within the Beaufort Sea (automobile, airplane, and helicopter); majority of the leased acreage and is Planning Area and within the scope of installation of electronic equipment; the proposed ITRs. Ten lease sales have expected to continue exploratory efforts, well drilling; drill rig transport; been held in this area since 1979, especially seismic work and exploratory personnel support; and demobilization, resulting in 147 active leases, where 32 drilling, within the Greater Mooses restoration, and remediation work. exploratory wells were drilled. Tooth and Bear Tooth Units of the NPR– Industry development activities are Production has occurred on one joint A. Other operators, including Anadarko often planned or coordinated by unit. A Federal/State unit, with Federal oil E&P Onshore LLC and NORDAQ unit is composed of a group of leases production accounting for more than Energy, Inc. also hold leases in the covering all or part of an accumulation 28.7 million barrels (bbl) (1 bbl = 42 NPR–A. Caelus Energy Alaska, LLC of oil or gas. Alaska’s North Slope oil U.S. gallons or 159 liters) of oil since (Caelus) has recently announced and gas field primary units include 2001 (BOEM 2015). Details regarding acquisition of leases and intentions to Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk River, Greater availability of future leases, locations, pursue exploratory drilling near Smith Point McIntyre, Milne Point, Endicott, and acreages are not yet available, but Bay in the Tulimaniq prospect. This Badami, the Alpine oilfields of the exploration of the OCS is expected to project would include construction of Colville River Unit, Greater Mooses continue. Lease Sale 242 previously ice pads, ice roads, temporary camps, Tooth (GMT), Northstar, Oooguruk, planned in the Beaufort Sea during 2017 and a temporary ice airstrip. Nikaitchuq, Liberty, Beechey Point and (BOEM 2012) was cancelled in 2015. A Point Thomson. In addition, some of Draft Programmatic Environmental Area-Wide Lease Sales these fields are associated with satellite oilfields: Tarn, Palm, Tabasco, West Impact Statement (EIS) for the 2017– The State of Alaska Department of Sak, Meltwater, West Beach, North 2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Natural Resources (ADNR), Oil and Gas Prudhoe Bay, Niakuk, Western Niakuk, is planned for public comment in early Division, holds annual lease sales of Kuparuk, Schrader Bluff, Sag River, 2016 and is expected to propose State lands available for oil and gas Eider, Sag Delta North, Qannik, and Beaufort Sea Lease Sale 255 for the year development. Lease sales are organized others. 2020 (BOEM 2015). by planning area. The approximately 0.8 Shell Exploration and Production million ha (∼2 million ac) Beaufort Sea Alpine Satellites and Greater Mooses Company (Shell) is the majority lease planning area occurs in coastal land and Tooth Units holder of BOEM Alaska OCS leases. In shallow waters along the shoreline of 2015 Shell announced that it would Continued expansion of the existing the North Slope between the NPR–A cease exploration activities on its BOEM Alpine oilfield within the Colville River and the ANWR (State of Alaska 2015a). Alaska OCS leases for the foreseeable Unit is planned for the 2016–2021 ITR It is entirely within the boundary of the future. Nevertheless, it is possible that period. Three new drill sites, Colville Beaufort Sea ITR region. The North Shell may pursue some sort of Delta drill site 5 (CD5, also known as exploration activities on its Beaufort Sea Slope planning area includes tracts Alpine West), GMT–1 (Lookout BOEM Alaska OCS leases or State of located to the south and inland from the prospect, formerly CD6), and GMT–2 Beaufort Sea planning area. Of the (Rendezvous prospect, formerly CD7) Alaska offshore leases during the 5-year ∼ period of these proposed ITRs. Shell approximately 2.1 million ha ( 5.1- are located in the Northeast NPR–A. The may conduct exploration and/or million ac), 0.8 million ha (2 million ac) GMT–1 project would facilitate the first delineation drilling during the open- occur within the Beaufort Sea ITR production of oil from Federal lands in water Arctic drilling season from a region. As of August 2015, there were the NPR–A (although within NPR–A, floating drilling vessel along with 1,253 active leases on the North Slope, CD5 is not on Federal land). These attendant ice management and oil spill encompassing 1.1 million ha (2.8 facilities will connect to existing response (OSR) equipment. For the million ac), and 261 active leases in the infrastructure at Alpine via a gravel road winter drilling season, Shell may State waters of the Beaufort Sea, and four bridges over the Colville River conduct drilling from an ice island or encompassing 284,677 ha (703,452 ac; (BLM 2014). Development of CD5 is bottom-founded structure, along with State of Alaska 2015b). The number of currently under way, and commercial attendant OSR equipment. Shell will acres leased has increased by 25 percent oil production began in October 2015. provide a detailed exploration plan on the North Slope and 14 percent in The GMT–1 project has received prior to conducting any activities in the the Beaufort Sea planning areas since permits, and road, pad, pipeline, and Beaufort Sea BOEM Alaska lease area. 2013. Although most of the existing oil facilities construction is anticipated for and gas development in the Southern 2017–2018, but due to permitting delays National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska Beaufort ITR region is concentrated in and low oil prices, CPAI has slowed The BLM manages the 9.2-million-ha these State planning areas, the increase construction plans that would have (22.8-million-ac) NPR–A of which 1.3 in leased acreage suggests that begun production by late 2017 (CPAI million ha (3.2 million ac) occur within exploration on State lands and waters 2015). Permitting for GMT–2 has not yet the Beaufort Sea ITR region. Within this will continue during the 2016–2021 ITR been completed, but construction and area, the BLM has offered approximately period. first production is tentatively scheduled

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36668 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

for 2019 and 2020. In addition to new on improving technologies, expanding estimated 26 million bbl of recoverable drill site development in the NPR–A, current production, and developing new reserves in the Central North Slope expansion of existing drill sites in the drill sites. Technological advancements region. The proposed East Shore pad Colville River Unit are also being have included hydraulic fracturing, will cover approximately 6.07 ha (∼15 considered. Additional development enhanced oil recovery, coil-tube ac). An 8.9-km (5.5-mi) gravel road will infrastructure in the area is planned drilling, and 4–D seismic surveys. Two be constructed to provide year-round with construction of the Nuiqsut spur new drill rigs will be brought online in access to production facilities. Oil will road. Although the road is not 2016. As of 2015, a new drill site ‘‘2S’’ be transported via a 1.6-km (1-mi) specifically proposed for Industry in the southwest ‘‘Shark Tooth’’ portion pipeline from the East Shore pad to purposes, it will provide access to of the unit is under construction. It will existing pipelines. Gravel construction Alpine workers living in Nuiqsut. require approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) of is expected to begin in 2018 with first additional gravel road, pipelines, and oil planned for 2020. The Colville-Kuparuk Fairway Units power lines. Oil production from this Liberty Unit The region between the Alpine field well is planned for 2016. The proposed and the Kuparuk Unit has been called ‘‘Northeast West Sak’’ expansion of the Hilcorp Alaska, LLC (Hilcorp) the Colville-Kuparuk Fairway (NSB existing ‘‘1H’’ drill site is also under recently assumed operation of the 2014). Within this region, Brooks Range way. The 3.8-ha (9.3-ac) project will Liberty Unit, located in nearshore Petroleum Corporation (BRPC) has accommodate additional wells and is Federal waters in Foggy Island Bay proposed development of 3 drill sites by planned to be complete in 2017. Oil about 17 km (11 mi) west of the Prudhoe 2020 as part of the 13-well Mustang from these facilities would be routed Bay Unit. Initial development of the development. An independent through the Kuparuk facilities to the Liberty Unit began in early 2009 but was processing center is proposed at the hub Trans-Alaska pipeline. Other pad suspended following changes in of the Mustang Development, but expansions and two additional drill production strategy. The current project production pipelines will tie into the sites in the eastern portion of the concept involves production from a Kuparuk facilities. Approximately 32.2 Kuparuk Unit may be developed later gravel island over the reservoir with full km (∼20 mi) of gravel road and pipeline this decade to access additional oil on-island processing capacity. Support will need to be constructed to tie in the resources. infrastructure would include a 12.9-km drill sites back to the Mustang (8-mi) subsea pipeline connecting to the development and provide year-round Prudhoe Bay Unit existing Badami pipeline. Pending access. First production of oil is New development within the Prudhoe permit approvals, first oil production is planned for mid-2016. BRPC has also Bay Unit is planned to help offset expected by 2020 or later. This project proposed development within the declining production from older wells. concept supersedes the cancelled Tofkat Unit southeast of the Alpine The newer wells employ horizontal and Liberty ultraextended-reach drilling oilfield for the years 2020–2021. If multilateral drilling, improved water project. constructed, the Tofkat gravel pad will and miscible gas injection techniques, Point Thomson Unit cover approximately 6.07 ha (∼15 ac) multi-stage fracturing, and other and will connect to Alpine technologies to access oil from The Point Thomson Unit is located infrastructure via an 8-km (5-mi) gravel sediments with low permeability at the approximately 25 km (∼20 mi) east of road and pipeline. periphery of the main oilfield. The the Liberty Unit and 97 km (60 mi) east Caelus has begun development of the BPXA has discussed the possibility of of Prudhoe Bay. The reservoir straddles Nuna prospect within the fairway. This development of as many as 200 new the coastline of the Beaufort Sea. It project is located at the northeast end, wells within the Greater Prudhoe Bay consists of a gas condensate reservoir within the Oooguruk Unit. Estimated Unit area during the upcoming decade. containing up to 8 trillion cubic feet date of first production from the Nuna Much of this expansion is planned to (ft 3) of gas and hundreds of millions of prospect is 2017. Development activities occur as part of the ‘‘West End bbl of gas liquids and oil. This amount include seismic surveys, continued Development Program.’’ Proposed is an estimated 25 percent of the North exploratory drilling, drilling production activities in this program include Slope’s natural gas reserves and is wells, and construction of drill pads, drilling 16 new wells, improving critical to any major gas roads, and pipeline connections to capacity of existing facilities, adding 25 commercialization project. Operator Kuparuk infrastructure. Spanish oil additional miles of pipeline, ExxonMobil is actively pursuing company, Repsol, has submitted plans construction of the first new pad in development of a processing facility for development of five potential well more than a decade, adding 2 drill rigs capable of handling 10,000 bbl per day, locations beginning in winter 2016 with to the fleet, and expanding 2 additional a pipeline with a design capacity of a three-well exploration program just pads within the unit. This program of 70,000 bbl per day, a camp, an airstrip, northwest of the Alpine field. If deemed development has been under way since and other ancillary facilities. Production commercial, a spine-and-spur road 2013 and is expected to be completed in is estimated to begin in 2016. All system expanded from these drill sites 2017 or later. proposed wells and supporting to existing Kuparuk facilities is easily infrastructure are located onshore. No Beechey Point/East Shore Units envisaged, along with multiple new permanent roads connecting with drill sites, a centralized processing The Beechey Point Unit lies Prudhoe Bay are currently proposed, but facility, and a network of flow lines tied immediately north of the Prudhoe Bay gravel roads will connect the infield into the Alpine Pipeline System. Unit near the shore of Gwydyr Bay. The facilities. Ice roads and barges are used unit operator, BRPC, is planning to seasonally to provide equipment and Kuparuk River Unit produce oil from several small supplies. Potential full field CPAI has pursued ongoing infield and hydrocarbon accumulations in and near development may include two satellite peripheral development at the existing this unit as part of the East Shore drill sites, additional liquids Kuparuk River Unit over the past Development Project. Existing Prudhoe production, and sale of gas. The timing decade and is likely to do so into the Bay infrastructure will be incorporated and nature of additional expansion will foreseeable future. Efforts have focused with new development to access the depend upon initial field performance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36669

and potential construction of a gas equipment modules to be off-loaded at Highway, or along the pipeline right-of- pipeline to export gas from the North the West Dock loading facility. The way. Slope. West Dock facility is a gravel causeway Colville River Unit stretching 4 km (2.5 mi) into Prudhoe Natural Gas Pipeline Bay. Shipments to West Dock will likely The Alpine oilfield within the Two proposals currently exist for require improvements to the dock Colville River Unit was discovered in construction of a natural gas pipeline to facilities including installing breasting 1994 and began production in 2000. transport natural gas from the Point dolphins to facilitate berthing and CPAI maintains a majority interest and Thomson and Prudhoe Bay production mooring of vessels, and raising the is the primary operator. Alpine is fields. The Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas height of the existing dockhead to currently the westernmost production (LNG) project is an Industry-sponsored accept the large shipments. Dredging oilfield on the North Slope, located 50 partnership whose members include BP will be needed to deepen the km (31 mi) west of the Kuparuk oilfield Alaska LNG LLC; ConocoPhillips Alaska navigational channel to the dockhead. and 14 km (9 mi) northeast of the village LNG Company; and ExxonMobil Alaska Continued preconstruction project of Nuiqsut. Facilities include a LNG LLC. The Alaska LNG project engineering and design work involving combined production pad/drill site and proposes to build a large-diameter (45– site evaluations and environmental 3 additional drill sites with a total of 106 centimeters (cm), 18–42 inch (in)) surveys on the North Slope is likely to approximately 180 wells. Pads, gravel natural gas pipeline from the North occur in the 2016–2021 period. roads, an airstrip, and processing Slope to Southcentral Alaska. In 2014, Additional early-phase construction facilities cover a total surface area of the State of Alaska joined in the project work could occur during this time but 66.8 ha (165 ac). Crude oil from Alpine as a 25 percent co-investor. Since then, would likely be limited to expansion of is transported 34 mi through a 14-in the project has begun the preliminary West Dock beginning in 2020, gravel pipeline to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline front end engineering and design phase, extraction and placement for pads and System. An ice road is constructed which is expected to extend into 2016 roads near Prudhoe Bay beginning in annually between Alpine and the with gross spending of more than $500 2019, and ice-road construction in Kuparuk oilfield to support major million. The routing of the proposed 2018–2021. resupply activities. Small aircraft are Alaska LNG project pipeline is from used year-round to provide supplies and Prudhoe Bay, generally paralleling the Production Activities crew changeovers; camp facilities can Dalton Highway corridor from the North North Slope production facilities support up to approximately 630 Slope to Fairbanks. An approximately occur between the oilfields of the personnel. 56.3-km (∼35-mi) lateral pipeline will Alpine Unit in the west to Badami and take off from the main pipeline and end Point Thomson in the east. Production Oooguruk Unit at Fairbanks. The main pipeline would activities include building operations, The Oooguruk Unit, operated by continue south, terminating at a natural oil production, oil transport, facilities Caelus, is located at the north end of the gas liquefaction plant near Nikiski. maintenance and upgrades, restoration, Colville-Kuparuk fairway, adjacent to There the remaining hydrocarbons will and remediation. Production activities the Kuparuk Unit in shallow waters of be condensed for export to national and are permanent, year-round activities, Harrison Bay. The Oooguruk drillsite is international markets. whereas exploration and development located on a 6 ac artificial island in the The second partnership, the Alaska activities are usually temporary and shallow waters of Harrison Bay. A 9.2- Stand Alone Gas Pipeline (ASAP) seasonal. Alpine and Badami are not km (5.7-mi) system of subsea flowlines, project, was originally planned as a 24- connected to the road system and must power cables, and communications in diameter natural gas pipeline with a be accessed by airstrips, barges, and cables connects the island to onshore natural gas flow rate of 500 million ft3 seasonal ice roads. Transportation on support facilities. Production began in per day at peak capacity, and is the North Slope is by automobile, 2008. Expansion of the drill site in 2015 currently considered by many as a airplanes, helicopters, boats, rolligons, and 2016 will increase the working backup plan for the larger Alaska LNG tracked vehicles, and snowmobiles. surface area from 2.4 ha (6 ac) to 3.8 ha project. The Alaska Gasline Aircraft, both fixed wing and (9.5 ac). Drilling of additional Development Corporation in helicopters, are used for movement of production wells are planned and new partnership with TransCanada Corp. has personnel, mail, rush-cargo, and injection well technology will be led the planning effort for ASAP. perishable items. Most equipment and employed. Cumulative production was Production from this pipeline would materials are transported to the North estimated to be 9.8 million bbl as of emphasize in-State distribution, Slope by truck or barge. Much of the 2011 (AOGCC 2013) although surplus gas would also likely barge traffic during the open water be condensed and exported. season unloads from West Dock. Kuparuk River Unit Either project would include an Maintenance dredging of up to 220,000 The Kuparuk oilfield, operated by underground pipeline with elevated cubic yards per year of material is CPAI, is Alaska’s second-largest bridge stream crossings, compressor performed at West Dock to ensure producing oilfield behind Prudhoe Bay. stations, possible fault crossings, continued operation. The gross volume of the oilfield has pigging facilities, and off-take valve Oil pipelines extend from each been estimated to be 6 billion bbl; more locations. Both pipelines would be developed oilfield to the Trans-Alaska than 2.5 billion bbl have been produced designed to transport a highly Pipeline System (TAPS). The 122-cm as of 2014 (CPAI 2014). Nearly 900 conditioned natural gas product, and (48-in) diameter TAPS pipeline extends wells have been drilled in the Greater would follow the same general route. As 1,287 km (800 mi) from the Prudhoe Bay Kuparuk Area, which includes the currently proposed, approximately 40 oilfield to the Valdez Marine Terminal. satellite oilfields of Tarn, Palm, km (∼25 mi) of pipeline would occur Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Tabasco, West Sak, and Meltwater. The within the Beaufort ITR region. A gas conducts pipeline operations and total development area in the Greater conditioning facility would need to be maintenance. Access to the pipeline is Kuparuk Area is approximately 603 ha constructed near Prudhoe Bay and will primarily from established roads, such (∼1,508 ac), including 167 km (104 mi) likely require one or more large as the Spine Road and the Dalton of gravel roads, 231 km (144 mi) of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36670 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

pipelines, 6 gravel mine sites, and over been produced from a field originally 10 km (6 mi) north of the Prudhoe Bay 50 gravel pads. The Kuparuk operations estimated to have 25 billion bbl of oil Unit in approximately 10 m (∼33 ft) of center and construction camp can in place. The Prudhoe Bay oilfield also water. It was developed by BPXA in accommodate up to 1,200 personnel. contains an estimated 26 trillion ft 3 of 1995, and began producing oil in 2001. recoverable natural gas. More than 1,100 The 15,360 ha (38,400 ac) reservoir lies Nikaitchuq Unit wells are currently in operation in the offshore in waters up to 40 ft deep. A The Nikaitchuq Unit, operated by Eni, Prudhoe Bay oilfields, approximately 2-ha (5-ac) artificial island supports 24 is north of the Kuparuk River Unit. The 830 of which are producing oil (others operating wells and all support facilities offshore portion of Nikaitchuq, the Spy are for gas or water injection). Average for this field. A subsea pipeline Island Development, is located south of daily production in 2012 was around connects facilities to the Prudhoe Bay the barrier islands of the Jones Island 255,500 BOE. oilfield. As of 2013, production had group and 6.4 km (4 mi) north of The Prudhoe Bay Unit encompasses surpassed 158.26 million bbl. The onsite Oliktok Point. In 2007, Eni became the several oilfields, including the Point base operations center houses 50 operator in the area and subsequently McIntyre, Lisburne, Niakuk, Western people. Access to Northstar is via constructed an offshore gravel pad and Niakuk, West Beach, North Prudhoe helicopter, hovercraft, boat, and onshore production facilities at Spy Bay, Borealis, Midnight Sun, Polaris, seasonal ice road. Of the existing Island and Oliktok Point. The offshore Aurora, and Orion reservoirs. Of these, offshore facilities Northstar is located pad is located in shallow water (i.e., 3 the largest field by production is the the farthest from shore. meters (m) (10 feet (ft) deep)). A subsea Point McIntyre oilfield, which lies about flowline was constructed to transfer 11 km (7 mi) north of Prudhoe Bay. Duck Island Unit produced fluids from shore. The wells Cumulative oil production between The Endicott oilfield, operated by require an electrical submersible pump 1993 and 2011 was 436 million bbl Hilcorp, is located in the Duck Island to produce oil because they are not (AOGCC 2013). In 2014, production at Unit approximately 16 km (∼10 mi) capable of unassisted flow. The flow can Point McIntyre averaged about 18,700 northeast of Prudhoe Bay. In 1986 it be stopped by turning off the pump. bbl of oil per day. The Lisburne field is became the first continuously producing Production began in 2011 at Oliktok largest by area. It covers about 80,000 ac offshore field in the U.S. Arctic. The Point and in 2012 at Spy Island. just northwest of the main Prudhoe Bay Endicott oilfield was developed from Cumulative production at the end of field. Production was reported as 7,070 two man-made gravel islands connected 2011 was approximately 2 million bbl. bbl per day in 2011, and cumulative to the mainland by a gravel causeway. As of 2015, a program to expand production was approximately 182 The operations center and processing production is under way, including million BOE as of 2014. The Niakuk facilities are located on the 24-ha (58-ac) drilling of 20 or more new wells to fields have also reached high main production island approximately recover oil from the nearby Schrader cumulative yields among the Greater 4.8 km (∼3 mi) offshore. As of August Bluff reservoirs. Prudhoe Bay area oilfields. Between 2013, 501 million BOE have been 1994 and 2011, these fields produced produced from Endicott. Production is Milne Point Unit about 157 million bbl. In 2014, the from the Endicott reservoir in the The Milne Point Unit, operated by combined Niakuk fields yielded about Kekiktuk formation and two satellite Hilcorp, is located approximately 56 km 1,200 bbl per day. Orion, Aurora, fields (Eider and Sag Delta North) in the (∼35 mi) northwest of Prudhoe Bay and Polaris, Borealis and Midnight Sun are Ivishak formation. All wells were immediately east of the Nikaitchuq considered satellite fields and were drilled from Endicott’s main production Unit. This field consists of more than producing more than 22,500 bbl per day island. The total area of development is 220 wells drilled from 12 gravel pads. combined in 2014 (BPXA 2015). In total, 210 ha (522 ac) of land (including the Milne Point produces oil from three Prudhoe Bay satellite fields have Liberty satellite drilling island) with 24 main fields: Kuparuk, Schrader Bluff, produced more than 184 million BOE. km (15 mi) of roads, 43 km (24 mi) of and Sag River. Cumulative oil The total development area in the pipelines, and 1 gravel mine site. production as of the end of 2012 was Prudhoe Bay Unit is approximately Approximately 85 people can be housed 308 million bbl of oil equivalent per day 2,785 ha (∼6,883 ac) within an area of at Endicott’s Liberty camp. (BOE, the amount of hydrocarbon about 86,418 ha (213,543 ac). On the Badami and Point Thomson Units product containing the energy east side of the field the main equivalent of a barrel of oil). Average construction camp can accommodate up The Badami and Point Thomson units daily production rate in 2012 was to 625 people, the Prudhoe Bay are located in the eastern portion of the 17,539 BOE with 114 production wells operations center houses up to 449 North Slope and Beaufort Sea planning online. The total gravel footprint of people, and the Tarmac Camp houses areas. Production from the Badami Milne Point and its satellites is 182 ha 244 people. The base operations center oilfield began in 1998 and from Point (450 ac). The Milne Point Operations on the western side of the Prudhoe Bay Thomson in 1983, but has not been Center has accommodations for up to oilfield can accommodate 474 people. continuous from either unit. The 180 people. An expansion program is Additional personnel are housed at Badami field is located approximately under way for the Milne Point Unit. It facilities in nearby Deadhorse industrial 56 km (∼35 mi) east of Prudhoe Bay and is likely to improve technology of center or in temporary camps placed on is the most easterly oilfield currently in existing wells and may also include existing gravel pads. Activities in the production on the North Slope. Point building a new drill pad, roads, and Prudhoe Bay Unit are likely to Thomson, located 4 km (2.5 mi) east of associated wells. emphasize greater production of natural Badami, was not in production as of gas if a gas pipeline is approved during 2015. The Badami development area is Prudhoe Bay Unit the 2016–2021 ITR period. approximately 34 ha (∼85 ac) of tundra The Prudhoe Bay Unit, operated by including 7 km (4.5 mi) of gravel roads, BPXA, is one of the largest oilfields by Northstar Unit 56 km (35 mi) of pipeline, 1 gravel mine production in North America and ranks The Northstar oilfield, currently site, and 2 gravel pads with a total of among the 20 largest oilfields operated by Hilcorp, is located 6 km (4 eight wells. As of 2011, cumulative worldwide. Over 12 billion bbl have mi) northwest of the Point McIntyre and production had reached 5.7 million bbl.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36671

There is no permanent road connection the winter of 2013, production was Biological Information from Badami to Prudhoe Bay. A 3 about 350 million ft per day. Pacific Walrus pipeline connecting the Badami oilfield Cumulatively, the field produced more to the common carrier pipeline system than 8.8 billion ft 3 through July 2013, Pacific walruses constitute a single at Endicott was built from an ice road. surpassing the original estimate of 6.2 panmictic population inhabiting the billion ft 3 of gas in place. shallow continental shelf waters of the Other Activities Bering and Chukchi seas (Lingqvist et Although activities within the Barrow Gas Hydrate Exploration and Research al. 2009, Berta and Churchill 2012). The Gas Fields were not specifically distribution of walruses is largely Growing interest in the North Slope’s identified by the Applicants, the influenced by the extent of the seasonal methane gas hydrate resources is petition did include this area as part of pack ice and prey densities. From April expected to continue in the upcoming 5 the request for ITRs. Additionally, a to June, most of the walrus population years. The U.S. Geological Survey portion of the Barrow Gas Fields are migrates from the Bering Sea through (USGS) has estimated the volume of similarly described in ITRs for the the Bering Strait and into the Chukchi technically recoverable undiscovered Chukchi Sea (78 FR 35364, June 12, Sea. Walruses tend to migrate into the methane gas hydrate on the North Slope 2013), while the remainder is located in Chukchi Sea along lead systems that is approximately 85 trillion ft 3 (with a the Beaufort Sea geographic region. develop in the sea-ice. Walruses are range of 25–158 trillion ft 3 (USGS Therefore, as part of this analysis, we closely associated with the edge of the 2013)). Recent gas hydrate test wells seasonal pack ice during the open-water drilled on the North Slope have have included the Barrow Gas Fields in the event that LOAs for activities on the season. By July, thousands of animals confirmed the presence of viable can be found along the edge of the pack reservoirs and buoyed interest in long- Beaufort Sea side of the field are requested. Gas production is expected to ice from Russian waters to areas west of term testing. International and Gulf of Point Barrow, Alaska. The pack-ice continue at its current rate during the Mexico test well simulations have usually advances rapidly southward in generated production-level gas yields. next 5 years, and will be accompanied late fall, and most walruses return to the Gas hydrate research on the North Slope by maintenance and support activities, Bering Sea by mid- to late-November. is supported by Federal funding and including possible access by air or over During the winter breeding season State initiatives. In 2013, the State of land, ice road construction, survey walruses are found in three Alaska temporarily set aside 11 tracts of work, or on-pad construction. concentration areas of the Bering Sea unleased State lands on the North Slope Evaluation of the Nature and Level of where open leads, polynyas, or thin ice for methane hydrate research. This Activities occur (Fay et al. 1984, Garlich-Miller et support is expected to result in a al. 2011a). While the specific location of continued interest in gas hydrate Based on the Industry request, we these groups varies annually and research and exploration, but assume that the proposed activities will seasonally depending upon the extent of development of this nonconventional increase the area of the industrial the sea-ice, generally one group occurs hydrocarbon resource is yet unproven footprint with the addition of new near the Gulf of Anadyr, another south and uncertainties regarding economic facilities, such as drill pads, pipelines, of St. Lawrence Island, and a third in feasibility, safety, and environmental and support facilities at a rate consistent the southeastern Bering Sea south of impact remain unresolved. For these with prior 5-year regulatory periods. Nunivak Island into northwestern reasons, a relatively low, but increasing Bristol Bay. level of gas hydrate exploration and However, oil production volume is Although most walruses remain in the research is expected during the expected to continue a long-term Chukchi Sea throughout the summer regulatory period. decline during this 5-year regulatory months, a few occasionally range into period despite new development. This the Beaufort Sea in late summer. Barrow Gas Fields prediction is due to declining Industry monitoring reports have The NSB operates the Barrow Gas production from currently producing observed no more than 35 walruses in Fields located south and east of the city fields. During the period covered by the the area of these proposed ITRs between of Barrow. The Barrow Gas Fields regulations, we assume the annual level 1995 and 2012, with only a few include the Walakpa, South, and East of activity at existing production instances of disturbance to those Gas Fields; of these, the Walakpa Gas facilities, as well as levels of new walruses (AES Alaska 2015, Kalxdorff Field and a portion of the South Gas annual exploration and development and Bridges 2003, USFWS unpubl. Field are located within the boundaries activities, will be similar to that which data). Beginning in 2008, the USGS, and of the Chukchi Sea geographical region occurred under the previous since 2013 the Alaska Department of and, therefore, not discussed here. The regulations, although exploration and Fish and Game (ADF&G), have fitted ¥ East Field and part of the South Field development may shift to new locations about 30 60 walruses with satellite are included in the Beaufort Sea ITR and new production facilities will add transmitters each year during spring and region. to the overall Industry footprint. summer. In 2014, a female tagged by The Barrow Gas Fields provide a Additional onshore and offshore ADF&G spent about 3 weeks in Harrison source of heat and electricity for the Bay (ADF&G 2014). The USGS tracking production facilities are being Barrow community. Drilling and testing data indicates that at least one considered within the timeframe of of the East Barrow Field began in 1974, instrumented walrus ventured into the these regulations, potentially adding to and regular gas production from the Beaufort Sea for brief periods in all pool began in December 1981. the total permanent activities in the years except 2011. Most of these Production peaked at about 2.75 million area. The rate of progress is similar to movements extend northeast of Barrow ft 3 of gas per day in 1983, and then prior production schedules, but there is to the continental shelf edge north of began to decline. In 2011 and 2012, NSB a potential increase in the accumulation Smith Bay (USGS 2015). All available increased production by drilling five of the industrial footprint, with an information indicates that few walruses new wells, upgrading pipelines, and increase mainly in onshore facilities. enter the Beaufort Sea and those that do installing modern wellhead housings. In spend little time there. The Service and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36672 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

USGS are conducting multiyear studies females. The population likely reached empirical estimation of the population on the walrus population to investigate or exceeded the food-based carrying size becomes feasible. movements and habitat use patterns. It capacity (K) of the region by 1980 (Fay A detailed description of the Pacific is possible that as sea-ice diminishes in et al. 1989, Fay et al. 1997, Garlich- walrus stock can be found in the Pacific the Chukchi Sea beyond the 5-year Miller et al. 2006, MacCracken et al. Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) period of this rule, walrus distribution 2014). Stock Assessment Report (announced at and habitat use may change. Between 1975 and 1990, aerial 79 FR 22154, April 21, 2014). A digital Walruses are generally found in surveys conducted jointly by the United copy of the Stock Assessment Report is waters of 100 m (328 ft) or less although States and Russia at 5-year intervals available at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/ they are capable of diving to greater produced population estimates ranging fisheries/mmm/stock/Revised_April_ depths. They use sea-ice as a resting from about 200,000 to 255,000 2014_Pacific_Walrus_SAR.pdf. platform over feeding areas, as well as individuals, with large confidence Polar bears are known to prey on for giving birth, nursing, passive intervals. Efforts to survey the walrus walruses, particularly calves, and killer transportation and avoiding predators population were suspended by both whales (Orcinus orca) have been known (Fay 1982, Ray et al. 2006). They feed countries after 1990 because problems to take all age classes of walruses (Frost almost exclusively on benthic with survey methods produced et al. 1992, Melnikov and Zagrebin invertebrates. Native hunters have also population estimates with unknown 2005). Predation rates are unknown but reported incidences of walruses preying bias and unknown variances that are thought to be highest near terrestrial on seals, and other items such as fish severely limited their utility. In 2006, haulout sites where large aggregations of and birds are occasionally taken the United States and Russia conducted walruses can be found. However, few (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009, another joint aerial survey in the pack observations exist of predation upon Seymour et al. 2014). Foraging trips may ice of the Bering Sea using thermal walruses farther offshore. last for several days with walruses imaging systems to more accurately Walruses have been hunted by coastal diving to the bottom nearly count walruses hauled out on sea-ice Natives in Alaska and Chukotka for continuously. Most foraging dives last and satellite transmitters to account for thousands of years. Exploitation of the between 5 and 10 minutes, with a 1–2- walruses in the water. The number of walrus population by Europeans has minute surface interval. The disturbance walruses within the surveyed area was also occurred in varying degrees since of the sea floor by foraging walruses estimated at 129,000 with 95 percent beginning with the arrival of exploratory releases nutrients into the water confidence limits of 55,000 to 507,000 expeditions, but ceased in 1972 in the column, provides food for scavenger individuals. This estimate should be United States with the passage of the organisms, contributes to the diversity considered a minimum, as weather MMPA and in 1990 in Russia. Presently, of the benthic community, and is conditions forced termination of the walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka thought to have a significant influence survey before large areas of the Bering is restricted to subsistence use by on the ecology of the Bering and Sea were surveyed (Speckman et al. aboriginal peoples. Harvest mortality Chukchi seas (Ray et al. 2006). 2011). from 2000¥2014 for both the United Walruses are social and gregarious Taylor and Udevitz (2015) used both States and Russian Federation averaged animals. They travel and haul-out onto the aerial survey population estimates 3,207 (SE = 194) walruses per year. This ice or land in groups. Walruses spend described above and ship-based age and mortality estimate includes corrections approximately 20¥30 percent of their sex composition counts that occurred in for under-reported harvest (U.S. only) time out of the water. Hauled-out 1981–1984, 1998, and 1999 (Citta et al. and struck and lost animals. Harvests walruses tend to be in close physical 2014) in a Bayesian integrated have been declining by about 3 percent contact. Young animals often lie on top population model to estimate per year since 2000 and were of adults. The size of the hauled out population trend and vital rates from exceptionally low in the United States groups can range from a few animals up 1975–2006. They recalculated the 1975– in 2012¥2014. Resource managers in to several thousand individuals. The 1990 aerial survey estimates based on a Russia have concluded that the largest aggregations occur at land lognormal distribution for inclusion in population has declined and reduced haulouts. In recent years, the barrier their model. Their results generally harvest quotas in recent years islands north of Point Lay, Alaska, have agreed with the large-scale population accordingly (Kochnev 2004; Kochnev held large aggregations of walruses trends identified by the previous efforts, 2005; Kochnev 2010; pers. comm.; (20,000¥40,000) in late summer and but with slightly different population Litovka 2015, pers. comm.), based in fall (Monson et al. 2013). estimates in some years along with more part on the lower abundance estimate The size of the walrus population has precise confidence intervals. They were generated from the 2006 survey. never been known with certainty. Based careful to note that all of the However, Russian hunters have never on large sustained harvests in the 18th demographic rates in their model were reached the quota (Litovka 2015, pers. and 19th centuries, Fay (1957) estimated based on age structure data comm.). speculated that the pre-exploitation from 1981 to 1999, when the population Intra-specific trauma at coastal population was represented by a was in decline, and that projections haulouts is also a known source of minimum of 200,000 animals. Since that outside those years are extrapolations of injury and mortality (USFWS 2015). time, population size following demographic functions that may not Disturbance events can cause walruses European contact is believed to have accurately reflect dynamics for different to stampede into the water and have fluctuated markedly in response to population trends. Ultimately, they been known to result in injuries and varying levels of human exploitation. concluded (i) that though their model mortalities. The risk of stampede-related Large-scale commercial harvests are provides improved clarity on past injuries increases with the number of believed to have reduced the population walrus population trends and vital rates, animals hauled out. Calves and young to 50,000–100,000 animals in the mid- it cannot overcome the large animals are particularly vulnerable to 1950s (Fay et al. 1989). The population uncertainties in the available population trampling injuries and mortality. increased rapidly in size during the size data, and (ii) that the absolute size Management and protection programs in 1960s and 1970s in response to harvest of the Pacific walrus population will both the United States and Russian regulations that limited the take of continue to be speculative until accurate Federation have been successful in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36673

reducing disturbances and large winds. On average two cubs are born during the fall period. The remains of mortality events at coastal haulouts per reproductive event, and, therefore, subsistence-harvested bowhead whales (USFWS 2015). reproductive potential (intrinsic rate of at Cross and Barter islands provide a The Service announced a 12-month increase) is low. The average readily available food source for bears in petition finding to list the Pacific walrus reproductive interval for a polar bear is these areas and appear to play a role in as endangered or threatened and to 3 to 4 years, and a female polar bear can this increase (Schliebe et al. 2006). designate critical habitat on February produce 8–10 cubs in her lifetime, in Based on Industry observations and 10, 2011 (76 FR 7634). The listing of healthy populations, and 50–60 percent coastal survey data acquired by the walruses was found to be warranted, but of the cubs will survive. Service, up to 125 individuals of the precluded due to higher priority listing In late March or early April, the SBS bear population have been actions and, the Pacific walrus was female and cubs emerge from the den. observed annually during the fall period added to the list of candidate species If the mother moves young cubs from between Barrow and the Alaska-Canada under the Endangered Species Act the den before they can walk or border. (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1533 et seq.). We will withstand the cold, mortality to the cubs In 2008, the Service listed polar bears make any determination on critical increases. Therefore, it is thought that as threatened under the ESA due to the habitat during development of the successful denning, birthing, and loss of sea-ice habitat caused by climate proposed listing rule. rearing activities require a relatively change (73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008). undisturbed environment. Radio and The Service later published a final rule Polar Bear satellite telemetry studies elsewhere under section 4(d) of the ESA for the Polar bears are found throughout the indicate that denning can occur in polar bear, which was vacated then ice-covered seas and adjacent coasts of multiyear pack ice and on land. In the reinstated when procedural the Arctic with a current population Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) population requirements were satisfied (78 FR estimate of approximately 26,000 the proportion of dens on pack ice 11766, February 20, 2013). This special individuals (95 percent Confidence declined from approximately 60 percent rule provides for measures that are Interval (CI) = 22,000–31,000) (Wiig et from 1985 through 1994 to 40 percent necessary and advisable for the al. 2015). Polar bears live up to 30 years, from 1998 through 2004 (Fischbach et conservation of polar bears. Specifically, have no natural predators, though al. 2007). This change is likely in the 4(d) rule: (a) Adopts the cannibalism is known to occur, and they response to reductions in stable old ice, conservation regulatory requirements of do not often die from diseases or increases in unconsolidated ice, and the MMPA and the Convention on parasites. Polar bears typically occur at lengthening of the melt season International Trade in Endangered low densities throughout their (Fischbach et al. 2007). If sea-ice extent Species of Wild Fauna and Flora circumpolar range (DeMaster and in the Arctic continues to decrease and (CITES) for the polar bear as the Stirling 1981). They are generally found the amount of unstable ice increases, a appropriate regulatory provisions, in in areas where the sea is ice-covered for greater proportion of polar bears may most instances; (b) provides that much of the year; however, polar bears seek to den on land (Durner et al. 2006, incidental, nonlethal take of polar bears are not evenly distributed throughout Fischbach et al. 2007). resulting from activities outside the their range. They are typically most In Alaska, maternal polar bear dens bear’s current range is not prohibited abundant on sea-ice, near the ice edges appear to be less densely concentrated under the ESA; (c) clarifies that the or openings in the ice, over relatively than those in Canada and Russia. In special rule does not alter the Section 7 shallow continental shelf waters with Alaska, certain areas, such as barrier consultation requirements of the ESA; high marine productivity (Durner et al. islands (linear features of low-elevation and (d) applies the standard ESA 2004). Their primary prey is ringed land adjacent to the main coastline that protections for threatened species when (Pusa hispida) and bearded (Erignathus are separated from the mainland by an activity is not covered by an MMPA barbatus) seals, although diet varies bodies of water), river bank drainages, or CITES authorization or exemption. regionally with prey availability much of the North Slope coastal plain, The Service designated critical habitat (Thiemann et al. 2008, Cherry et al. and coastal bluffs that occur at the for polar bear populations in the United 2011). Polar bears use the sea-ice as a interface of mainland and marine States effective January 6, 2011 (75 FR platform to hunt seals. Over most of habitat, receive proportionally greater 76086, December 7, 2010). On January their range, polar bears remain on the use for denning than other areas. 13, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the sea-ice year-round or spend only short Maternal denning occurs on tundra- District of Alaska issued an order that periods on land. They may, however, be bearing barrier islands along the vacated and remanded the polar bear observed throughout the year in the Beaufort Sea and also in the large river critical habitat final rule to the Service onshore and nearshore environments, deltas, such as those associated with the (Alaska Oil and Gas Association and where they will opportunistically Colville and Canning rivers. American Petroleum Institute v. scavenge on beached marine mammal During the late summer/fall period Salazar, Case No. 3:11–cv–0025–RRB). carcasses (Kalxdorff and Fischbach (August through October), polar bears On February 29, 2016, the United States 1998). Their distribution in coastal are most likely to be encountered along Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit habitats is often influenced by the the coast and barrier islands. They use reversed that order and remanded it movement of seasonal sea-ice. these areas as travel corridors and back to the U.S. District Court for the Females can initiate breeding at 5 to hunting areas. Based on Industry District of Alaska for entry of judgment 6 years of age. Females without observations, encounter rates are higher in favor of FWS (Alaska Oil and Gas dependent cubs breed in the spring. during the fall (August to October) than Association v. Jewell, Case No. 13– Pregnant females enter maternity dens any other time period. The duration of 35619). by late November, and the young are time the bears spend in these coastal Critical habitat identifies geographic usually born in late December or early habitats depends on a variety of factors areas that contain features that are January. Only pregnant females den for including storms, ice conditions, and essential for the conservation of a an extended period during the winter; the availability of food. In recent years, threatened or endangered species and other polar bears may excavate polar bears have been observed in larger that may require special management or temporary dens to escape harsh winter numbers than previously recorded protection. Under section 7 of the ESA,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36674 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

if there is a Federal action, we will polar_bear_sar.pdf and http://www.fws. population is near the Colville Delta in analyze the potential impacts of the gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_ the central Beaufort Sea and the western action upon polar bear critical habitat. cbs_polar_bear_sar.pdf. A summary of boundary is near the Kolyma River in Polar bear critical habitat units include: the Alaska polar bear stocks are northeastern Siberia (Garner et al.1990; Barrier island habitat, sea-ice habitat described below. Amstrup 1995; Amstrup et al. 2005). (both described in geographic terms), The population’s southern boundary is Southern Beaufort Sea and terrestrial denning habitat (a determined by the extent of annual sea- functional determination). Barrier island The SBS polar bear population is ice in the Bering Sea. There is an habitat includes coastal barrier islands shared between Canada and Alaska. extensive area of overlap between the and spits along Alaska’s coast; it is used Radio-telemetry data, combined with SBS and CS populations roughly for denning, refuge from human eartag returns from harvested bears, between Icy Cape, Alaska, and the disturbance, access to maternal dens suggest that the SBS population Colville Delta (Garner et al. 1990; Garner and feeding habitat, and travel along the occupies a region with a western et al. 1994; Amstrup et al. 2000; coast. Sea-ice habitat is located over the boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an Amstrup et al. 2004; Obbard et al. 2010; continental shelf, and includes water eastern boundary near Pearce Point, Wiig et al. 2015). 300 m (∼984 ft) or less in depth. Northwest Territories, Canada (USFWS It has been difficult to obtain a Terrestrial denning habitat includes 2010). reliable population estimate for this lands within 32 km (∼20 mi) of the Early estimates from the mid-1980s stock due to the vast and inaccessible northern coast of Alaska between the suggested the size of the SBS population nature of the habitat, movement of bears Canadian border and the Kavik River was approximately 1,800 polar bears, across international boundaries, and within 8 km (∼5 mi) between the although uneven sampling was known logistical constraints of conducting Kavik River and Barrow. The total area to compromise the accuracy of that studies in the Russian Federation, and designated covers approximately estimate. A population analysis of the budget limitations (Amstrup and 484,734 km2 (∼187,157 mi2), and is SBS stock was completed in June 2006 DeMaster 1988; Garner et al. 1992; entirely within the lands and waters of through joint research coordinated Garner et al. 1998; Evans et al. 2003). the United States. Polar bear critical between the United States and Canada. Estimates of the stock have been habitat is described in detail in the final That analysis indicated the population derived from observations of dens and rule that designated polar bear critical of the region between Icy Cape and aerial surveys (Chelintsev 1977; Stishov habitat (75 FR 76086, December 7, Pearce Point was approximately 1,500 1991a; Stishov 1991b; Stishov et al. 2010). A digital copy of the final critical polar bears (95 percent confidence 1991); however, those estimates have habitat rule is available at: http:// intervals approximately 1,000–2,000). wide confidence intervals and are alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/ Although the confidence intervals of the outdated. The most recent estimate of polarbear/pdf/federal_register_ 2006 population estimate overlapped the CS stock was approximately 2,000 notice.pdf. the previous population estimate of animals, based on extrapolation of aerial Management and conservation 1,800, other statistical and ecological den surveys (Lunn et al. 2002; USFWS concerns for the SBS and Chukchi/ evidence (e.g., high recapture rates 2010; Wiig et al. 2015). However, Bering Seas (CS) polar bear populations encountered in the field) suggest that accurate estimates of the size and trend include sea-ice loss due to climate the current population is actually of the CS stock are difficult to obtain change, bear-human conflict, oil and gas smaller than has been estimated for this and not currently available. Ongoing industry activity, oil spills and area in the past. The most recent and planned research studies for the contaminants, increased marine population estimate for the SBS period 2016–2018 will result in shipping, increased disease, and the population was produced by the USGS improved information, although the potential for overharvest. Research has in 2015. Bromaghin et al. (2015) wide distribution of polar bears on sea linked declines in sea-ice to reduced developed mark-recapture models to ice, the vast size of the region, and the physical condition, growth, and survival investigate the population dynamics of lack of infrastructure to support of polar bears (Bromaghin et al. 2015). polar bears in the SBS from 2001 to research studies will continue to make Projections indicate continued climate 2010. They estimated that in 2010 there it difficult to obtain up-to-date and warming at least through the end of this were approximately 900 polar bears (90 accurate estimates of vital rates and century (IPCC 2013). The associated percent CI 606–1212) in the SBS population size. More information about reduction of summer Arctic sea-ice is population (Bromaghin et al. 2015). polar bears can be found at: http://www. expected to be a primary threat to polar That study showed a 25 to 50 percent fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/ bear populations (Amstrup et al. 2008, decline in abundance of SBS bears due polarbear/pbmain.htm. Stirling and Derocher 2012). to low survival from 2004 through 2006. Climate Change Though survival of adults and cubs Stock Definition, Range, and Status began to improve in 2007, and As atmospheric greenhouse gas Polar bears are distributed throughout abundance was comparatively stable concentrations increase so will global the circumpolar Arctic region. In from 2008 to 2010, survival of subadult temperatures (Pierrehumbert 2011). The Alaska, polar bears have historically bears declined throughout the entire Arctic has warmed at twice the global been observed as far south in the Bering period. rate (IPCC 2007), and long-term data sets Sea as St. Matthew Island and the show that substantial reductions in both Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971). A detailed Chukchi/Bering Seas the extent and thickness of Arctic sea- description of the SBS and CS polar The CS polar bear population is ice cover have occurred over the past 40 bear stocks can be found in the Polar shared between Russia and Alaska. The years (Meier et al. 2014, Frey et al. Bear (Ursus maritimus) Stock CS stock is widely distributed on the 2015). Stroeve et al. (2012) estimated Assessment Reports (announced at 74 pack-ice in the Chukchi Sea, northern that, since 1979, the minimum area of FR 69139, December 30, 2009). Digital Bering Sea, and adjacent coastal areas in fall Arctic sea-ice declined by over 12 copies of the Stock Assessment Reports Alaska and Chukotka, Russia. Radio- percent per decade through 2010. are available at: http://www.fws.gov/ telemetry data indicate that the Record minimum areas of fall Arctic alaska/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_sbs_ northeastern boundary of the CS sea-ice extent were recorded in 2002,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36675

2005, 2007, and 2012 (lowest on record). Decreased sea-ice extent may impact communities on the north coast of The overall trend of continued decline the reproductive success of denning Alaska than it is in west coast of Arctic sea-ice is expected to continue polar bears. In the 1990s, approximately communities. There are no quotas under for the foreseeable future (Stroeve et al. 50 percent of the maternal dens of the the MMPA for Alaska Native polar bear 2007, Amstrup et al. 2008, Hunter et al. SBS polar bear population occurred harvest in the Southern Beaufort Sea; 2010, Overland and Wang 2013, 73 FR annually on the pack-ice in contrast to however, there is a Native-to-Native 28212, May 15, 2008). terrestrial sites (Amstrup and Gardner agreement between the Inuvialuit in For walruses, climate-driven trends in 1994). The proportion of dens on sea-ice Canada and the Inupiat in Alaska, the Chukchi Sea have resulted in declined from 62 percent in 1985–1994 created in 1988. This agreement, seasonal fall sea-ice retreat beyond the to 37 percent in 1998–2004 (Fischbach referred to as the Inuvialuit-Inupiat continental shelf over deep Arctic et al. 2007) causing a corresponding Polar Bear Management Agreement, Ocean waters. Reasonably foreseeable increase in terrestrial dens. This trend established quotas and impacts to walruses as a result of in terrestrial denning appears to have recommendations concerning protection diminishing sea-ice cover include continued. Polar bears require a stable of denning females, family groups, and potential shifts in range, habitat use, substrate for denning. As sea-ice methods of take. Although this local abundance, increased frequency conditions deteriorate and become less Agreement does not have the force of and duration at coastal haulouts, stable, coastal dens become vulnerable law from either the Canadian or the U.S. increased vulnerability to predation and to erosion from storm surges. Polar bear Governments, the users have abided by disturbance, and localized declines in dens on land, especially on the North its terms. In Canada, users are subject to prey. It is unknown if walruses will Slope of Alaska, are also at greater risk provincial regulations consistent with utilize the Beaufort Sea more in the of conflict with human activities. the Agreement. Commissioners for the future due to climate change effects. Polar bear use of Beaufort Sea coastal Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement set the Currently, and for the next 5 years, it areas in Alaska during the fall open- original quota at 76 bears in 1988, split appears that walruses will remain water period (June through October) evenly between the Inuvialuit in Canada uncommon in the Beaufort Sea. have increased over time. The Service and the Inupiat in the United States. In For polar bears, sea-ice habitat loss anticipates that polar bear use of the July 2010, the quota was reduced to 70 due to climate change has been Beaufort Sea coast will continue to bears per year. identified as the primary cause of increase during the open-water season. The Alaska Native subsistence harvest conservation concern. Amstrup et al. This change in distribution has been of polar bears from the SBS population (2007) projected a 42 percent loss of correlated with the distance of the pack- has remained relatively consistent since optimal summer polar bear habitat by ice from the coast at that time of year 1980 and averages 36 bears annually. 2050. They concluded that, if current (i.e., the farther from shore the leading From 2005 through 2009, Alaska Arctic sea-ice declines continue, polar edge of the pack-ice, the more bears Natives harvested 117 bears from the bears may eventually be excluded from observed onshore) (Schliebe et al. 2006). SBS population, an average of onshore denning habitat in the Polar The current trend for sea-ice in the approximately 23 bears annually. From Basin Divergent Ecoregion, where ice is region will result in increased distances 2010 through 2014, Alaska Natives formed and then drawn away from near- between the ice edge and land, likely harvested 98 polar bears from the SBS shore areas, especially during the resulting in more bears coming ashore population, an average of approximately summer minimum ice season. The SBS during the open-water period. More 20 bears annually. The reason for the and CS polar bear populations inhabit polar bears on land for a longer period decline of harvested polar bears from this ecoregion, and Amstrup et al. of time may increase human-bear the SBS population is unknown. Alaska (2008) projected that these populations interactions during this time period. Native subsistence hunters and harvest may be extirpated within the next 45– reports have not indicated a lack of 75 years if sea-ice declines continue at Potential Effects of Oil and Gas opportunity to hunt polar bears or current rates. Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses disruption by Industry activity. Climate change is likely to have of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears serious consequences for the worldwide Evaluation of Effects of Activities on population of polar bears and their prey Pacific Walrus Subsistence Uses of Pacific Walruses (Amstrup et al. 2007, Amstrup et al. Few walruses are harvested in the and Polar Bears 2008, Hunter et al. 2010). Climate Beaufort Sea along the northern coast of Barrow and Kaktovik are expected to change is expected to impact polar bears Alaska since their primary range is in be affected to a lesser degree by Industry in a variety of ways including increased the Bering and Chukchi seas. Walruses activities than Nuiqsut. Nuiqsut is movements, changes in bear constitute a small portion of the total located within 5 mi of ConocoPhillips’ distributions, changes to the access and marine mammal harvest for the village Alpine production field to the north and allocation of denning areas, increased of Barrow. Hunters from Barrow ConocoPhillips’ Alpine Satellite energy expenditure from open-water harvested 451 walruses in the past 20 development field to the west. However, swimming, and possible decreased years with 78 harvested since 2009. Nuiqsut hunters typically harvest polar fitness. The timing of ice formation and Walrus harvest from Nuiqsut and bears from Cross Island during the breakup will impact seal distributions Kaktovik is opportunistic. They have annual fall bowhead whaling. Cross and abundance and, consequently, how reported taking four walruses since Island is approximately 16 km (∼10 mi) efficiently polar bears can hunt seals. 1993. Less than 1.5 percent of the total offshore from the coast of Prudhoe Bay. Reductions in sea-ice are expected to walrus harvest for Barrow, Nuiqsut, and We have received no evidence or reports require polar bears to use more Kaktovik from 2009 to 2014 has that bears are altering their habitat use physiological energy, as moving through occurred within the geographic range of patterns, avoiding certain areas, or being fragmented sea-ice and open water the incidental take regulations. affected in other ways by the existing requires more energy than walking level of oil and gas activity near across consolidated sea-ice (Cherry et al. Polar Bear communities or traditional hunting 2009, Pagano et al. 2012, Rode et al. Based on subsistence harvest reports, areas that would diminish their 2014). polar bear hunting is less prevalent in availability for subsistence use.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36676 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Changes in activity locations may 2014 no interactions between walrus marine mammals are very close to the trigger community concerns regarding and Industry were reported in the sound source, but may cause the effect on subsistence uses. Industry Beaufort Sea ITR region. We have no disturbance. will need to remain proactive to address evidence of any physical effects or Typical source levels associated with potential impacts on the subsistence impacts to individual walruses due to underwater marine 3D and 2D seismic uses by affected communities through Industry activity. If an interaction did surveys are 230–240 dB. Airgun arrays consultations, and where warranted, occur, it could potentially result in produce broadband frequencies from 10 POCs. Open communication through some level of disturbance. The response Hz to 2 kHz with most of the energy venues such as public meetings, which of walruses to disturbance stimuli is concentrated below 200 Hz. Frequencies allow communities to express feedback highly variable. Anecdotal observations used for high-resolution oil and gas prior to the initiation of operations, will by walrus hunters and researchers exploration surveys are typically 200 be required as part of an LOA suggest that males tend to be more Hz–900 kHz. Commercial sonar systems application. If community subsistence tolerant of disturbances than females may also generate lower frequencies use concerns arise from new activities, and individuals tend to be more tolerant audible to marine mammals (Deng et al appropriate mitigation measures are than groups. Females with dependent 2012). Some surveys use frequencies as available and will be applied, such as a calves are considered least tolerant of low as 50 Hz or as high as 2 MHz. cessation of certain activities at certain disturbances. In the Chukchi Sea Broadband source levels for high- locations during specified times of the disturbance events are known to cause resolution surveys can range from 210 to year, i.e., hunting seasons. walrus groups to abandon land or ice 226 dB at 1 m. Sound attenuates in air No unmitigable concerns from the haulouts and occasionally result in more rapidly than in water, and potentially affected communities trampling injuries or cow-calf underwater sound levels can be loud regarding the availability of walruses or separations, both of which are enough to cause hearing loss in nearby polar bears for subsistence uses have potentially fatal. Calves and young animals and disturbance of animals at been identified through Industry animals at terrestrial haulouts are greater distances. consultations with the potentially particularly vulnerable to trampling Noise generated by Industry activities, affected communities of Barrow, injuries. whether stationary or mobile, has the Kaktovik, and Nuiqsut. Based on potential to disturb walruses. Marine Industry reports, aerial surveys, direct Noise Disturbance mammals in general have variable observations, community consultations, Walruses hear sounds both in air and reactions to noise sources, particularly and personal communication with in water. Kastelein et al. (1996) tested mobile sources such as marine vessels. hunters, it appears that subsistence the in-air hearing of a walrus from 125 Reactions depend on the individuals’ hunting opportunities for walruses and hertz (Hz) to 8 kilohertz (kHz) and prior exposure to the disturbance polar bears have not been affected by determined the walrus could hear all source, their need, or desire to be in the past Industry activities, and we do not frequency ranges tested but the best particular habitat or area where they are anticipate that the proposed activities sensitivity was between 250 Hz and 2 exposed to the noise, and visual for this ITR will have different effects. kHz. Kastelein et al. (2002) tested presence of the disturbance source. underwater hearing and determined that Walruses are typically more sensitive to Potential Effects of Oil and Gas range of hearing was between 1 kHz and disturbance when hauled out on land or Industry Activities on Pacific Walruses, 12 kHz with greatest sensitivity at 12 ice than when they are in the water. In Polar Bears, and Prey Species kHz. The small sample size warrants addition, females and young are Individual walruses and polar bears caution; other pinnipeds can hear up to generally more sensitive to disturbance can be affected by Industry activities in 40 kHz. Many of the noise sources than adult males. numerous ways. These include (1) noise generated by Industry activities, other Potential impacts of Industry- disturbance, (2) physical obstructions, than the very high frequency seismic generated noise include displacement (3) human encounters, and (4) effects on profiling, are likely to be audible to from preferred foraging areas, increased prey. In order to evaluate effects to walruses. stress, energy expenditure, interference walruses and polar bears, we analyzed Seismic operations, pile driving, ice with feeding, and masking of both documented and potential effects, breaking, and various other Industry communications. Any impact of including those that could have more activities introduce substantial levels of Industry noise on walruses is likely to than negligible impacts. The effects noise into the marine environment. be limited to a few individuals due to analyzed included the loss or preclusion Greene et al. (2008) measured their geographic range and seasonal of habitat, harassment, lethal take, and underwater and airborne noise from ice distribution. Walruses typically inhabit exposure to oil spills. road construction, heavy equipment the pack-ice of the Bering and Chukchi operations, auguring, and pile driving seas and do not often move into the Pacific Walrus during construction of a gravel island at Beaufort Sea. Walruses do not utilize the Beaufort Northstar. Underwater sound levels In the nearshore areas of the Beaufort Sea frequently and the likelihood of from construction ranged from 103 Sea, stationary offshore facilities could encountering walruses during Industry decibels (dB) at 100 m (328 ft) for produce high levels of noise that has the operations is low. During the time auguring to 143 dB at 100 m (328 ft) for potential to disturb walruses. These period of these regulations, Industry pile driving. Most of the energy of these include Endicott, BPXA’s Saltwater operations may occasionally encounter sounds was below 100 Hz. Airborne Treatment Plant (located on the West small groups of walruses swimming in sound levels from these activities Dock Causeway), Oooguruk, and open water or hauled out onto ice floes ranged from 65 dB at 100 m (328 ft) for Northstar facilities. The Liberty project or along the coast. Industry monitoring a bulldozer and 81 dB at 100 m (328 ft) will also have this potential when it data have reported 35 walruses between for pile driving. Most of the energy for commences operations. From 2009 1995 and 2012, with only a few in-air levels was also below 100 Hz. through 2014 there were no reports of instances of disturbance to those Airborne sound levels and frequencies walruses hauling out at Industry walruses (AES Alaska 2015, USFWS typically produced by Industry are facilities in the Beaufort Sea ITR region. unpublished data). From 2009 through unlikely to cause hearing damage unless Previous observations have been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36677

reported of walruses hauled out on The NOAA 190-dBrms injury threshold ITRs have required separate actions for Northstar Island and swimming near the is an estimate of the sound level likely groups of greater than 12 walruses. Saltwater Treatment Plant. In 2007, a to cause a permanent shift in hearing Industry activities are unlikely to female and a subadult walrus were threshold (permanent threshold shift or encounter large aggregations of walruses observed hauled-out on the Endicott PTS). This value was modelled from in the Beaufort Sea. This stipulation was Causeway. In instances where walruses temporary threshold shifts (TTS) originally developed for and is more have been seen near these facilities, they observed in pinnipeds (NMFS 1998, applicable to mitigation of impacts to have appeared to be attracted to them, HESS 1999). More recently, Kastak et al. walruses in the Chukchi Sea and is not possibly as a resting area or haulout. (2005) found exposures resulting in TTS likely to be applicable in the Beaufort In the open waters of the Beaufort in pinniped test subjects ranging from Sea. Sea, seismic surveys and high- 152 to 174 dB (183 to 206 dB SEL). The acoustic thresholds for marine resolution site-clearance surveys will be Southall et al. (2007) reviewed the mammals under NOAA’s jurisdiction the primary source of high levels of literature and derived behavior and are currently being revised (NOAA underwater sound. Such surveys are injury thresholds based on peak sound 2015, NOAA 2016). New thresholds will typically carried out away from the edge pressure levels of 212 dB (peak) and 218 estimate PTS onset levels for impulsive of the seasonal pack-ice. This scenario dB (peak) respectively. Because onset of (e.g., airguns, impact pile drivers) and will minimize potential interactions TTS can vary in response to duration of nonimpulsive (e.g., sonar, vibratory pile with large concentrations of walruses, exposure, Southall et al. (2007) also drivers) sound sources. Thresholds will which typically favor sea-ice habitats. derived thresholds based on sound be specific to marine mammal The most likely response of walruses to exposure levels (SEL). Sound exposure functional hearing groups; separate acoustic disturbances in open water will level can be thought of as a composite thresholds for otariid and phocid be for animals to move away from the metric that represents both the pinnipeds will be adopted. Auditory source of the disturbance. Displacement magnitude of a sound and its duration. weighting functions will be from a preferred feeding area may The study proposed threshold SELs incorporated into calculation of PTS reduce foraging success, increase stress weighted at frequencies of greatest threshold levels. The updated acoustic levels, and increase energy sensitivities for pinnipeds of 171 dB thresholds will also account for expenditures. Potential adverse effects (SEL) and 186 dB (SEL) for behavioral accumulation of injury due to repeated of Industry noise on walruses can be impacts and injury respectively or ongoing exposure by adopting dual reduced through the implementation of (Southall et al. 2007). Reichmuth et al. metrics of sound (cumulative sound the monitoring and mitigation measures (2008) demonstrated a persistent TTS, if exposure level and peak sound pressure identified in this ITR. not a PTS, after 60 seconds of 184 dB level). The updated criteria will not provide specification for modeling Potential acoustic injuries from high SEL. Kastelein (2012) found small but sound exposures from various activities. levels of sound such as those produced statistically significant TTSs at They will not update thresholds for during seismic surveys may manifest in approximately 170 dB SEL (136 dB, 60 min) and 178 dB SEL (148 dB, 15 min). preventing behavioral responses, nor the form of temporary or permanent will they provide any new information changes in hearing sensitivity. The Based on these data, and applying a regarding the Pacific walrus. underwater hearing abilities of the precautionary approach in the absence Once NOAA’s new criteria for Pacific walrus have not been studied of empirical information, we assume it preventing harm to marine mammals sufficiently to develop species-specific is possible that walruses exposed to from sound exposure are finalized, the criteria for preventing harmful 190-dB or greater sound levels from Service will evaluate the new thresholds exposure. Sound pressure level underwater activities (especially seismic for applicability to walruses. In most thresholds have been developed for surveys) could suffer injury from PTS. cases, the Service’s existing thresholds other members of the pinniped Walruses exposed to underwater sound for Pacific walrus will result in greater taxonomic group, above which exposure pressure levels greater than 180 dB separation distances or shorter periods is likely to cause behavioral responses could suffer temporary shifts in hearing of exposure to Industry sound sources and injuries (Finneran 2015). thresholds. Repeated or continuous than would NOAA’s new pinniped Historically, the National Oceanic and exposure to sound levels between 160 thresholds. Assuming walrus hearing Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 180 dB may also result in TTS, and sensitivities are similar to other has used 190 dBrms as a threshold for exposures above 160 dB are more likely pinnipeds, the Service’s sound exposure predicting injury to pinnipeds and 160 to elicit behavioral responses than lower thresholds are, in some situations, likely dBrms as a threshold for behavioral level exposures. The Service’s to be more conservative than necessary impacts from exposure to impulse noise underwater sound mitigation measures to prevent injury from PTS and TTS. (NMFS 1998, HESS 1999). The include employing protected species However, animals may be exposed to behavioral response threshold was observers (PSOs) to establish and multiple stressors beyond acoustics developed based primarily on monitor 160-dB, 180-dB, and 190-dB during an activity, with the possibility observations of marine mammal isopleth mitigation zones centered on of additive or synergistic effects (e.g., responses to airgun operations (e.g., any underwater sound source greater Crain et al. 2008). The Service’s Malme et al., 1983a, 1983b; Richardson than 160 db. The 160-dB zone must be mitigation measures will prevent et al., 1986, 1995). Southall et al. 2007 monitored; walruses in this zone will be acoustic injury as well as minimize assessed relevant studies, found assumed to experience Level B take. The noise exposures that may cause considerable variability among 180-dB and 190-dB zones shall be free biologically significant behavioral pinnipeds, and determined that of marine mammals before the sound- reactions in walruses. exposures between ∼90 and 140 dB producing activity can begin and must To reduce the likelihood of Level B generally do not appear to induce strong remain free of marine mammals during harassment, and prevent behavioral behavioral responses in pinnipeds in the activity. The proposed ITRs responses capable of causing Level A water, but an increasing probability of incorporate slight changes in the harassment, the Service has established avoidance and other behavioral effects mitigation zones when compared to an 805-m (0.5-mile) operational exists in the 120 to 160 dB range. previous ITRs for the region. Previous exclusion zone around groups of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36678 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

walruses feeding in water or any walrus behavioral alterations of small numbers linked with pack-ice; (2) pack-ice was observed on land or ice. As mentioned of walruses. near active prospects for relatively short previously, walruses show variable time periods; and (3) ice passing near Vessel Traffic reactions to noise sources. Relatively active prospects contained relatively minor reactions, such as increased Although seismic surveys and few animals. The report concluded that vigilance, are not likely to disrupt offshore drilling operations are expected effects of the drilling operations on biologically important behavioral to occur in areas of open water away walruses were limited in time, patterns and, therefore, do not reach the from the pack ice, support vessels and geographical scale, and the proportion level of harassment, as defined by the aircraft servicing seismic and drill of population affected. MMPA. However, more significant operations may encounter aggregations When walruses are present, reactions have been documented in of walruses hauled out onto sea-ice. The underwater noise from vessel traffic in response to noise. Industry monitoring sight, sound, or smell of humans and the Beaufort Sea may ‘‘mask’’ ordinary efforts in the Chukchi Sea suggest that machines could potentially displace communication between individuals by icebreaking activities can displace some these animals from any ice haulouts. preventing them from locating one walrus groups up to several kilometers Walruses react variably to noise from another. It may also prevent walruses away (Brueggeman et al. 1990). vessel traffic; however, it appears that from using potential habitats in the Approximately 25 percent of walrus low-frequency diesel engines cause less Beaufort Sea and may have the potential groups on pack-ice responded by diving of a disturbance than high-frequency to impede movement. Vessel traffic will into the water, and most reactions outboard engines. In addition, walrus likely increase if offshore Industry densities within their normal occurred within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the expands and may increase if warming distribution are highest along the edge ship (Brueggeman et al. 1991). Reactions waters and seasonally reduced sea-ice of the pack-ice, and Industry vessel such as fleeing a haulout or departing a cover alter northern shipping lanes. feeding area have the potential to traffic typically avoids these areas. The reaction of walruses to vessel traffic is Because offshore exploration disrupt biologically significant activities are expected to move behavioral patterns, including nursing, dependent upon vessel type, distance, speed, and previous exposure to throughout the Beaufort Sea, impacts feeding, and resting, and may result in associated with support vessels and decreased fitness for the affected disturbances. Walruses in the water aircrafts are likely to be distributed in animal. These reactions meet the criteria appear to be less readily disturbed by time and space. Therefore, the only for Level B harassment under the vessels than walruses hauled out on effect anticipated would be short-term MMPA. Industry activities producing land or ice. Furthermore, barges and behavioral alterations impacting small high levels of noise or occurring in close vessels associated with Industry numbers of walruses in the vicinity of proximity also have the potential to activities travel in open water and avoid active operations. Adoption of illicit extreme reactions (Level A large ice floes or land where walruses mitigation measures that include an harassment) including separation of are likely to be found. In addition, 805-m (0.5-mi) exclusion zone for mothers from young or instigation of walruses can use a vessel as a haul-out marine vessels around walrus groups stampedes. However, most groups of platform. In 2009, during Industry hauled out walruses showed little activities in the Chukchi Sea, an adult observed on ice are expected to reduce reaction to icebreaking activities beyond walrus was found hauled out on the the intensity of disturbance events and 805 m (0.5 mi; Brueggeman et al. 1990). stern of a vessel. It eventually left once minimize the potential for injuries to Because some seismic survey confronted. animals. activities are expected to occur in Drilling operations are expected to Aircraft Traffic nearshore regions of the Beaufort Sea, involve drill ships attended by impacts associated with support vessels icebreaking vessels to manage Aircraft overflights may disturb and aircraft are likely to be locally incursions of sea-ice. Ice management walruses. Reactions to aircraft vary with concentrated, but distributed over time operations are expected to have the range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as and space. Therefore, noise and greatest potential for disturbances since well as walrus age, sex, and group size. disturbance from aircraft and vessel walruses are more likely to be Adult females, calves, and immature traffic associated with seismic surveys encountered in sea-ice habitats and ice walruses tend to be more sensitive to are expected to have relatively management operations typically aircraft disturbance. Fixed-winged localized, short-term effects. The require the vessel to accelerate, reverse aircraft are less likely to elicit a mitigation measures stipulated in these direction, and turn rapidly, thereby response than helicopter overflights. ITRs will require seismic survey vessels maximizing propeller cavitation and Walruses are particularly sensitive to and associated support vessels to apply producing significant noise. Previous changes in engine noise and are more acoustic mitigation zones, maintain an monitoring efforts in the Chukchi Sea likely to stampede when planes turn or 805-m (0.5-mile) distance from Pacific suggest that icebreaking activities can fly low overhead. Researchers walrus groups, introduce noise displace some walrus groups up to conducting aerial surveys for walruses gradually by implementing ramp-up several kilometers away; however, most in sea-ice habitats have observed little procedures, and to maintain a 457-m groups of hauled-out walruses showed reaction to fixed-winged aircraft above (1,500-ft) minimum altitude above little reaction beyond 805 m (0.5 mi). 457 m (1,500 ft) (USFWS unpubl. data). walruses. These measures are expected Monitoring programs associated with Although the intensity of the reaction to to reduce the intensity of disturbance exploratory drilling operations in the noise is variable, walruses are probably events and to minimize the potential for Chukchi Sea since 1990 noted that most susceptible to disturbance by fast- injuries to animals. approximately 25 percent of walrus moving and low-flying aircraft (100 m With the low occurrence of walruses groups encountered in the pack-ice (328 ft) above ground level) or aircraft in the Beaufort Sea and the adoption of during icebreaking responded by diving that change or alter speed or direction. the mitigation measures required by this into the water, with most reactions In the Chukchi Sea there are recent ITR, the Service concludes that the only occurring within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the examples of walruses being disturbed by anticipated effects from Industry noise ship. The monitoring report noted that: aircraft flying in the vicinity of in the Beaufort Sea would be short-term (1) Walrus distributions were closely haulouts. It appears that walruses are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36679

more sensitive to disturbance when titled Risk Assessment of Potential the cubs are able to survive outside of hauled out on land versus sea-ice. Effects Upon Polar Bears From a Large the den, or if the female abandons the Oil Spill in the Beaufort Sea) combined cubs, the cubs will die. Physical Obstructions with the fact that walruses are not An example of a den abandonment in Based on known walrus distribution present in the region during the ice- the early stages of denning occurred in and the very low numbers found in the covered season and occur only January 1985, where a female polar bear Beaufort Sea, it is unlikely that walrus infrequently during the open-water appears to have abandoned her den in movements would be displaced by season indicates that Industry activities response to Rolligon traffic within 500 offshore stationary facilities, such as the will likely have limited indirect effects m (1,640 ft) of the den site. In spring Northstar Island or causeway-linked on walruses through effects on prey 2002, noise associated with a polar bear Endicott complex, or by vessel traffic. species. research camp in close proximity to a There is no indication that the few bear den is thought to have caused a walruses that used Northstar Island as a Polar Bear female bear and her cub(s) to abandon haulout in the past were displaced from Noise Disturbance their den and move to the ice their movements. Vessel traffic could prematurely. In spring 2006, a female temporarily interrupt the movement of Noise produced by Industry activities with two cubs emerged from a den 400 walruses, or displace some animals during the open-water and ice-covered m (1,312 ft) from an active river crossing when vessels pass through an area. This seasons could disturb polar bears. The construction site. The den site was displacement would probably have impact of noise disturbances may affect abandoned within hours of cub minimal or no effect on animals and bears differently depending upon their emergence, and 3 days after the female would last no more than a few hours. reproductive status (e.g., denning versus had emerged. In spring 2009, a female non-denning bears). The best available Human Encounters with two cubs emerged from a den scientific information indicates that within 100 m (328 ft) of an active ice Human encounters with walruses female polar bears entering dens, or road with heavy traffic and quickly could occur in the course of Industry females in dens with cubs, are more abandoned the site. In January 2015 a activities, although such encounters sensitive than other age and sex groups freshly dug polar den was discovered in would be rare due to the limited to noises. an active gravel pit adjacent to an active distribution of walruses in the Beaufort Noise disturbance can originate from landfill and busy road. The bear Sea. These encounters may occur within either stationary or mobile sources. abandoned the den after 56 days. During certain cohorts of the population, such Stationary sources include construction, the time the bear occupied the den, as calves or animals under stress. In maintenance, repair and remediation Industry activity in the area was 2004, a suspected orphaned calf hauled- activities, operations at production restricted, and the den was constantly out on the armor of Northstar Island facilities, gas flaring, and drilling monitored. A subsequent investigation numerous times over a 48-hour period, operations from either onshore or of the den found no evidence that the causing Industry to cease certain offshore facilities. Mobile sources bear gave birth. It is unknown if or to activities and alter work patterns before include vessel and aircraft traffic, open- what extent Industry activity it disappeared in stormy seas. water seismic exploration, winter contributed to the bear leaving the den. Additionally, a walrus calf was vibroseis programs, geotechnical While such events may have occurred, observed for 15 minutes during an surveys, ice road construction, vehicle information indicates they have been exploration program 60 ft from the dock traffic, tracked vehicles and infrequent and isolated. It is important at Cape Simpson in 2006. From 2009 snowmobiles, drilling, dredging, and to note that the knowledge of these through 2014, Industry reported no ice-breaking vessels. recent examples occurred because of the similar interactions with walruses. Noise produced by stationary monitoring and reporting program activities could elicit variable responses Effect on Prey Species established by the ITRs. from polar bears. The noise may act as Conversely, during the denning Walruses feed primarily on immobile a deterrent to bears entering the area, or seasons of 2000–2002, two dens known benthic invertebrates. The effect of the noise could potentially attract bears. to be active were located within Industry activities on benthic Attracting bears to these facilities, approximately 0.4 km and 0.8 km (∼0.25 invertebrates most likely would be from especially exploration facilities in the mi and ∼0.5 mi) of remediation oil discharged into the environment. Oil coastal or nearshore environment, could activities on Flaxman Island in the has the potential to impact walrus prey result in human-bear encounters, Beaufort Sea with no observed impact to species in a variety of ways including, unintentional harassment, intentional the polar bears. This observation but not limited to, mortality due to hazing, or lethal take of the bear. suggests that polar bears exposed to smothering or toxicity, perturbations in Industry activities may potentially routine industrial noises may habituate the composition of the benthic disturb polar bears at maternal den sites. to those noises and show less vigilance community, as well as altered metabolic The timing of potential Industry activity than bears not exposed to such stimuli. and growth rates. Relatively few compared with the timing of the This observation came from a study that walruses are present in the central maternal denning period can have occurred in conjunction with industrial Beaufort Sea. It is important to note that, variable impacts on the female bear and activities performed on Flaxman Island although the status of walrus prey her cubs. Disturbance, including noise, in 2002 and a study of undisturbed dens species within the Beaufort Sea are may negatively impact bears less during in 2002 and 2003 (N = 8) (Smith et al. poorly known, it is unclear to what the early stages of denning when the 2007). Researchers assessed vigilant extent, if any, prey abundance plays in pregnant female has less investment in behavior with two potential measures of limiting the use of the Beaufort Sea by a den site before giving birth. She may disturbance: (1) The proportion of time walruses. Further study of the Beaufort abandon the site in search of another scanning their surroundings; and (2) the Sea benthic community as it relates to one and still successfully den and give frequency of observable vigilant walruses is warranted. The low birth. Premature den site abandonment behaviors. The two bears exposed to the likelihood of an oil spill large enough to after the birth of cubs may also occur. industrial activity spent less time affect prey populations (see the section If den site abandonment occurs before scanning their surroundings than bears

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36680 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

in undisturbed areas and engaged in limited to relatively ice-free, open where vessel traffic occurs. Barges and vigilant behavior significantly less often. water. During this time in the Beaufort vessels associated with Industry The potential for disturbance Sea, polar bears are typically found activities travel in open water and avoid increases once the female emerges from either on land or on the pack ice, which large ice floes. As demonstrated in the the den. She is more vigilant against limits the chances of the interaction of 2012 Shell example previously, perceived threats and easier to disturb. polar bears with offshore Industry encounters between vessels and polar As noted earlier, in some cases, while activities. Though polar bears have been bears would most likely result in short- the female is in the den, Industry observed in open water, miles from the term and temporary behavioral activities have progressed near den site ice edge or ice floes, the encounters are disturbance only. with no observed disturbance. In the relatively rare. However, if bears come Aircraft Traffic 2006 denning example previously in contact with Industry operations in discussed, it was believed that Industry open water, the effects of such Routine Industry aircraft traffic activity commenced in the area after the encounters may include short-term should have little to no effect on polar den had been established. Industry behavioral disturbance. Bears in the bears, though frequent and chronic activities occurred within 50 m (164 ft) water could be affected by sound in the aircraft activity may cause more of the den site with no apparent water, but received sound in the water significant disturbance. Observations of disturbance while the female was in the would be attenuated near the surface polar bears during fall coastal surveys, den. Ongoing activity most likely had due to the pressure release effect of which flew at much lower altitudes than been occurring for approximately 3 airgun sounds near the water’s surface is required of Industry aircraft (see months in the vicinity of the den. (Greene and Richardson 1988, mitigation measures), indicate that the Likewise, in 2009, two bear dens were Richardson et al. 1995). Because polar reactions of non-denning polar bears located along an active ice road. The bears generally do not dive far or for should be limited to short-term changes bear at one den site appeared to long below the surface and they in behavior ranging from no reaction to establish her site prior to ice road normally swim with their heads above running away. Such disturbance should activity and was exposed to the surface, it is likely that they would have no more than short-term, approximately 3 months of activity 100 be exposed to very little sound in the temporary, and minor impacts on m (328 ft) away and emerged at the water. Exposure to sound in the water individuals and no discernible impacts appropriate time. The other den site was would also be short term and temporary on the polar bear population, unless it discovered after ice road construction for only the time a bear’s head was was chronic and long-term. In contrast, commenced. This site was exposed to below the surface. It is likely that denning bears could prematurely ice road activity, 100 m (328 ft) away, offshore seismic exploration activities or abandon their dens in response to for approximately 1 month. Known other geophysical surveys during the repeated aircraft overflight noise. instances of polar bears establishing open-water season would result in no Mitigation measures, such as minimum dens prior to the onset of Industry more than short-term and temporary flight elevations over polar bears, activity within 500 m (1,640 ft) or less behavioral disturbance to polar bears, habitat areas of concern, and flight of the den site, but remaining in the den similar to that discussed earlier. restrictions around known polar bear through the normal denning cycle and In 2012, during the open-water dens, will be required, as appropriate, to later leaving with her cubs, apparently season, Shell vessels encountered a few reduce the likelihood that polar bears undisturbed despite the proximity of polar bears swimming in ice-free water are disturbed by aircraft. Industry activity, occurred in 2006, more than 70 mi (112.6 km) offshore in Physical Obstructions 2009, 2010, and 2011. the Chukchi Sea. In those instances the Industry observation data suggests bears were observed to either swim Industry facilities may act as physical that, with proper mitigation measures in away from or approach the Shell barriers to movements of polar bears. place, activities can continue in the vessels. Sometimes a polar bear would Most facilities are located onshore and vicinity of dens until the emergence by swim around a stationary vessel before inland where polar bears are less the female bear. Mitigation measures leaving. In at least one instance a polar frequently found. The offshore and such as activity shutdowns near the den bear approached, touched, and coastal facilities are more likely to be and 24-hour monitoring of the den site investigated a stationary vessel from the approached by polar bears. The majority can minimize impacts to the animals water before swimming away. of Industry bear observations occur and allow the female bear to naturally Polar bears are more likely to be within 1.6-km (1-mi) of the coastline as abandon the den when she chooses. For affected by on-ice or in-ice Industry bears use this area as travel corridors. example, in the spring of 2010, an active activities versus open-water activities. As bears encounter these facilities, the den site was observed approximately 60 From 2009 through 2014 there were a chances for human-bear interactions m (197 ft) from a heavily used ice road. few Industry observation reports of increase. The Endicott and West Dock A 1.6-km (1-mi) exclusion zone was polar bears during on-ice activities. causeways, as well as the facilities established around the den, closing a Those observations were primarily of supporting them, have the potential to 3.2 km (2-mi) section of the road. bears moving through an area during act as barriers to movements of polar Monitors were assigned to observe bear winter seismic surveys on near-shore bears because they extend continuously activity and monitor human activity to ice. The disturbance to bears, if any, was from the coastline to the offshore minimize any other impacts to the bear minimal, short-term, and temporary due facility. However, polar bears have group. These mitigation measures to the mobility of such projects and frequently been observed crossing minimized disturbance to the bears and limited to small-scale alterations to bear existing roads and causeways and allowed them to abandon the den site movements. appear to traverse the human-developed naturally. areas as easily as the undeveloped areas. Mobile sources of sound, e.g., vessel- Vessel Traffic Offshore production facilities, such as based exploration activities, seismic During the open-water season, most Northstar, Spy Island, and Oooguruk, surveys, or geophysical surveys, may polar bears remain offshore associated have frequently been approached by disturb polar bears. In the open-water with the multiyear pack ice and are not polar bears, but appear to present only season, Industry activities are generally typically present in the ice-free areas a small-scale, local obstruction to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36681

bears’ movement. Of greater concern is from habitat areas such as pupping lairs only small numbers of bears, were the increased potential for polar bear- or haulouts and abandon breathing primarily short-term changes to human interaction at these facilities. holes near Industry activity. However, behavior, and had no long-term impacts these disturbances appear to have on individuals and no impacts on the Human Encounters minor, short-term, and temporary effects polar bear population. Industry Historically, polar bear observations (NMFS 2013). Effects of contamination monitoring data has documented are seasonally common, but close from oil discharges for seals are various types of interactions between encounters with Industry personnel are described in the following section. polar bears and Industry. The most uncommon. These encounters can be significant impacts to polar bears from dangerous for both polar bears and Evaluation of Effects of Oil and Gas Industry activity have been the result of humans. Industry Activity on Pacific Walruses close bear-human encounters, some of Encounters are more likely to occur and Polar Bears which have led to deterrence events. during the fall at facilities on or near the Pacific Walrus For the analysis of Industry take of coast. Polar bear interaction plans, polar bears, we included both incidental training, and monitoring required by the Proposed Industry activities may and intentional takes that occurred from ITRs have proven effective at reducing result in some incremental cumulative 2010 through 2014. We included polar bear–human encounters and the effects to the relatively few walruses intentional takes to provide a risks to bears and humans when exposed to these activities through the transparent and complete analysis of encounters occur. Polar bear interaction potential exclusion or avoidance of Industry-related polar bear takes on the plans detail the policies and procedures walruses from resting areas and North Slope of Alaska. Intentional take that Industry facilities and personnel disruption of associated biological of polar bears is a separate authorization will implement to avoid attracting and behaviors. However, based on the under sections 101(a)(4)(A), 109(h), and interacting with polar bears as well as habitat use patterns of walruses and 112(c) of the MMPA and is distinct from minimizing impacts to the bears. their close association with seasonal the ITRs. Intentional take authorizations Interaction plans also detail how to pack-ice, relatively few animals are allow citizens conducting activities in respond to the presence of polar bears, likely to be encountered during the polar bear habitat to take polar bears by the chain of command and open-water season when marine nonlethal, noninjurious harassment for communication, and required training activities are expected to occur. the protection of both human life and for personnel. Required monitoring and mitigation polar bears. The purpose of the Industry has also developed and uses measures designed to minimize intentional take authorization is to deter technology to aid in detecting polar interactions between Industry activities polar bears prior to a bear-human bears, including bear monitors, closed- and walruses are also expected to limit encounter escalating to the use of circuit television (CCTV), video these impacts. Hunting pressure, deadly force against a polar bear. The cameras, thermal cameras, radar climate change, and the increase of Service provides guidance and training devices, and motion-detection systems. other human activities in walrus habitat as to the appropriate harassment In addition, some companies take steps all have potential to impact walruses. response necessary for polar bears. The to actively prevent bears from accessing But those activities and their impacts MMPA-specific authorizations have facilities using safety gates and fences. are mostly a concern in the Bering and proven to be successful in preventing Known polar bear dens around the Chukchi seas where large numbers of injury and death to humans and polar oilfield, discovered opportunistically, or walruses are found. Therefore, we bears. as a result of planned surveys, such as conclude that in the Beaufort Sea, From 2010 through 2014, a total of tracking marked bears or den detection Industry activities during the 5-year 107 LOAs were issued to Industry, and surveys, are monitored by the Service. period covered by these regulations, as polar bear observations were recorded However, these sites are only a small mitigated through the regulatory for 36.4 percent (39) of those LOAs. percentage of the total active polar bear process, are not expected to add Industry reported 1,234 observations of dens for the SBS stock in any given significantly to the cumulative impacts 1,911 polar bears. The highest number year. Each year Industry coordinates on the walrus population. of bears was observed during the with the Service to conduct surveys to months of August and September. Polar Bear determine the location of Industry’s Industry polar bear observations have activities relative to known dens and The effects of Industry activity are increased from previous regulatory time denning habitat. Industry activities are evaluated, in part, through information periods. The higher number of bear required to avoid known polar bear dens gained in monitoring reports, which are sightings was most likely the result of by 1 mi. There is the possibility that an required for each LOA issued. an increased number of bears using unknown den may be encountered Information from these reports provides terrestrial habitat as a result of changes during Industry activities. When a a history of past effects on polar bears in sea-ice, multiple vessel-based previously unknown den is discovered from interactions with Industry projects occurring near barrier islands, in proximity to Industry activity, the activities. In addition, information used and the increased compliance and Service implements mitigation measures in our effects evaluation includes improved monitoring of Industry such as the 1.6-km (1-mi) activity published and unpublished polar bear projects. This trend in observations is exclusion zone around the den and 24- research and monitoring reports, consistent with the anticipation that hour monitoring of the site. information from the 2008 ESA polar polar bears will increase their use of bear listing, stock assessment reports, coastal habitats during the months when Effect on Prey Species status reviews, conservation plans, sea-ice is far from shore and over deep The effects of Industry activity upon Alaska Native traditional knowledge, water. Because some of the reports were polar bear prey, primarily ringed seals, anecdotal observations, and professional repeat observations of the same bears on will be similar to that of effects upon judgment. different dates, the actual number of walruses, and primarily through noise Since 1993, the documented impacts individual bears encountered is lower disturbance or exposure to an oil spill. of incidental take by Industry activity in than reported. However, due to the Seals may be displaced by disturbance the Beaufort Sea ITR region affected nature of the information in the Industry

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36682 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

observation reports, we must accept the includes measures that minimize An example of the application of this information ‘‘as is’’ while impacts to the species, one polar bear process would be in the case of Industry acknowledging that it collectively over- has been killed due to encounters activities occurring around a known reports bear numbers. associated with current Industry bear den, where a standard condition of When we compared the reported bear activities on the North Slope. In August an LOA requires Industry projects to numbers to the SBS population (i.e., 900 2011, a female polar bear was have developed a polar bear interaction bears), we found that 42 percent of the accidentally killed on the Endicott plan and to maintain a 1.6-km (1-mi) SBS polar bear population may have causeway when an attempt to buffer between Industry activities and been observed by Industry personnel nonlethally deter the bear was not any known denning sites. In addition, from 2010 to 2014. When we evaluated conducted properly. After the 2011 we may require Industry to avoid the effects upon the 1,911 bears lethal take incident, the Service working in known denning habitat until observed, we found that 81 percent reviewed the circumstances that bears have left their dens. To further (1,549) resulted in instances of non- contributed to the death of the bear and reduce the potential for disturbance to taking. Of the remaining 362 implemented a series of corrective denning females, we have conducted encounters, 78 resulted in Level B takes actions with Industry. The Service research, in cooperation with Industry, by incidental disturbance, 260 Level B believes that the corrective actions to enable us to accurately detect active takes by deterrence, 23 instances of significantly reduce the potential for a polar bear dens through the use of unknown effect, and 1 Level A take similar situation to arise in the future. remote sensing techniques, such as associated with Industry activity. Over Therefore, we do not anticipate any maps of denning habitat along the those 5 years, 338 Level B takes of polar lethal take of polar bears during the 5- Beaufort Sea coast and FLIR imagery. bears occurred, which is approximately year period of these proposed ITRs. FLIR imagery, as a mitigation tool, is 18 percent of the observed bears, or 7.5 The activities proposed by Industry used in cooperation with coastal polar percent of the SBS population. are likely to result in incremental bear denning habitat maps. Industry For the 2011–2016 ITR, the Service cumulative effects to polar bears during activity areas, such as coastal ice roads, estimated that takes of polar bears by all the 5-year regulatory period. Based on are compared to polar bear denning Level B harassment events would not Industry monitoring information, for habitat, and transects are then created to exceed 150 per year. Our analysis of example, deflection from travel routes survey the specific habitat within the Industry polar bear observation reports along the coast appears to be a common Industry area. FLIR heat signatures shows that from 2010 through 2014 an occurrence, where bears move around within a standardized den location average of 68 Level B harassment events coastal facilities rather than traveling protocol are noted, and further occurred per year, well below our through them. Incremental cumulative mitigation measures are placed around estimated value. Industry activities that effects could also occur through the these locations. FLIR surveys are more occur on or near the Beaufort Sea coast potential exclusion or temporary effective at detecting polar bear dens continue to have the greatest potential avoidance of polar bears from feeding, than visual observations. The for encountering polar bears rather than resting, or denning areas and disruption effectiveness increases when FLIR Industry activities occurring inland or of associated biological behaviors. surveys are combined with site-specific, far offshore. However, based on monitoring results scent-trained dog surveys. These From 2010 through 2014, intentional acquired from past ITRs, the level of techniques will continue to be required harassment by deterrence of 260 polar cumulative effects, including those of as conditions of LOAs when bears (14 percent of the observed 1,911) climate change, during the 5-year appropriate. resulted in Level B take. The percentage regulatory period would result in of polar bear deterrence events that negligible effects on the bear Industry has sponsored cooperative result in Level B take has decreased over population. research evaluating how polar bears time from a high of 39 percent of Mitigation measures required for all perceive and respond to various types of observed bears in 2005. The Service projects will include a polar bear disturbance. This information has been attributes this long-term decrease in interaction plan, training of personnel, a useful to refine site-specific mitigation deterrence events to increased polar record of communication with measures. Using current mitigation bear safety and awareness training of potentially affected communities, and a measures, Industry activities have had Industry personnel as well as our POC when appropriate. Mitigation no known polar bear population-level ongoing deterrence education, training, measures that may be used on a case-by- effects during the period of previous and monitoring programs. We have no case basis include the use of trained regulations. We anticipate that, with indication that nonlethal, noninjurious marine mammal monitors associated continued mitigation measures, the harassment by deterrence, which with marine activities, the use of den impacts to denning and non-denning temporarily alters the behavior and habitat maps developed by the USGS, polar bears will be at the same low level movement of some bears, has an effect surveys to locate polar bear dens, timing as in previous regulations. on survival and recruitment in the SBS of the activity to limit disturbance The Service believes that the required polar bear population. around dens, the 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer mitigation measures will be effective in Lethal take of polar bears by Industry surrounding known dens, and suggested minimizing the impacts of Industry activity is very rare. Since 1968, three work actions around known dens. The activity upon polar bears during the 5- documented cases of lethal take of polar Service implements certain mitigation year timeframe of this proposed ITR as bears associated with oil and gas measures based on need and they have in the past. activities have occurred. In winter effectiveness for specific activities based For further information on the 1968–1969, an Industry employee shot largely on timing and location. For cumulative effects of oil and gas and killed a polar bear in defense of example, the Service will implement development on polar bears in Alaska, human life. In 1990, a female polar bear different mitigation measures for a 2- refer to the Service’s 2008 ‘‘Range-Wide was killed at a drill site on the west side month-long exploration project 20 mi Status Review of the Polar Bear (Ursus of Camden Bay, also in defense of inland from the coast, than for an maritimus)’’ at: http://www.fws.gov/ human life. Since the beginning of the annual nearshore development project alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/ incidental take program in 1993, which in shallow waters. Polar_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36683

Potential Effects of Oil Spills on Pacific projects are planned, the potential for the Service’s oil spill response plans for Walruses and Polar Bears large spills in the marine environment walruses and polar bears in Alaska is Walrus and polar bear ranges overlap increases. located at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/ Oiling of food sources, such as ringed with many active and planned Industry fisheries/contaminants/pdf/Polar%20 seals, may result in indirect effects on _ activities. There is a risk of oil spills Bear%20WRP%20final%20v8 Public polar bears, such as a local reduction in from facilities, ships, and pipelines in %20website.pdf and https:// ringed seal numbers, or a change to the both offshore and onshore habitat. To dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/plans/uc/ local distribution of seals and bears. date, no major offshore oil spills have Annex%20G%20(Oct%202012).pdf. More direct effects on polar bears could BOEM has acknowledged that there occurred in the Alaska Beaufort Sea. occur from: (1) Ingestion of oiled prey, are difficulties in effective oil-spill Though numerous small onshore spills potentially resulting in reduced survival response in broken-ice conditions, and have occurred on the North Slope, there of individual bears; (2) oiling of fur and the National Academy of Sciences has have been no documented effects to subsequent ingestion of oil from determined that ‘‘no current cleanup polar bears. grooming; (3) oiling and fouling of fur methods remove more than a small Oil spills are unintentional releases of with subsequent loss of insulation, fraction of oil spilled in marine waters, oil or petroleum products. In leading to hypothermia; and (4) especially in the presence of broken accordance with the National Pollutant disturbance, injury, or death from ice.’’ BOEM advocates the use of Discharge Elimination System Permit interactions with humans during oil nonmechanical methods of spill Program, all North Slope oil companies spill response activities. Polar bears may response, such as in-situ burning, must submit an oil spill contingency be particularly vulnerable to during periods when broken-ice would plan. It is illegal to discharge oil into the disturbance when nutritionally stressed hamper an effective mechanical environment, and a reporting system and during denning. Cleanup operations response (MMS 2008b). An in-situ burn requires operators to report spills. that disturb a den could result in death has the potential to rapidly remove large Between 1977 and 1999, an average of of cubs through abandonment, and quantities of oil and can be employed 70 oil and 234 waste product spills perhaps death of the sow as well. In when broken-ice conditions may occurred annually on the North Slope spring, females with cubs of the year preclude mechanical response. oilfields. Although most spills have that denned near or on land and migrate However, the resulting smoke plume been small by Industry standards (less to contaminated offshore areas may may contain toxic chemicals and high than 50 bbl), larger spills (more than 500 encounter oil following a spill (Stirling levels of particulates that can pose bbl) accounted for much of the annual in Geraci and St. Aubin 1990). health risks to marine mammals, birds volume. Seven large spills occurred In the event of an oil spill, the Service and other wildlife, as well as to humans. between 1985 and 2009 on the North follows oil spill response plans to Smoke trajectories must be considered Slope. The largest spill occurred in the respond to the spill, coordinate with before making the decision to burn spring of 2006 when approximately partners, and reduce the impact of a spilled oil. Another potential 6,190 bbl leaked from flow lines near an spill on wildlife. Several factors will be nonmechanical response strategy is the oil gathering center. More recently, considered when responding to an oil use of chemical dispersants to speed several large spills have occurred. In spill. They include the location of the dissipation of oil from the water surface 2012, 1,000 bbl of drilling mud and 100 spill, the magnitude of the spill, oil and disperse it within the water column bbl of crude were spilled in separate viscosity and thickness, accessibility to in small droplets. Dispersant use incidents, in 2013, approximately 166 spill site, spill trajectory, time of year, presents environmental trade-offs. bbl of crude oil was spilled, and in weather conditions (i.e., wind, While walruses and polar bears would 2014, 177 bbl of drilling mud was temperature, precipitation), likely benefit from reduced surface or spilled. Those spills occurred primarily environmental conditions (i.e., presence shoreline oiling, dispersant use could in the terrestrial environment in heavily and thickness of ice), number, age, and have negative impacts on the aquatic industrialized areas not utilized by sex of walruses and polar bears that are food chain. Oil spill cleanup in the walruses or polar bears and posed little (or are likely to be) affected, degree of broken-ice and open-water conditions risk to the animals. contact, importance of affected habitat, that characterize Arctic waters is Walruses and polar bears could cleanup proposal, and likelihood of problematic. encounter spilled oil from exploratory human-bear interactions. Response operations, existing offshore facilities, efforts will be conducted under a three- Evaluation of Effects of Oil Spills on pipelines, or from marine vessels. The tier approach characterized as: (1) Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears shipping of crude oil, oil products, or Primary response, involving The MMPA does not authorize the other toxic substances, as well as the containment, dispersion, burning, or incidental take of marine mammals as fuel for the shipping vessels, increases cleanup of oil; (2) secondary response, the result of illegal actions, such as oil the risk of a spill. Future reductions in involving hazing, herding, preventative spills. Any event that results in an Arctic sea-ice extent are expected to capture/relocation, or additional injurious or lethal outcome to a marine improve access to Arctic shipping lanes methods to remove or deter wildlife mammal is not authorized under this and extend the Arctic shipping season, from affected or potentially affected ITR. However, for the purpose of also increasing the risk of a spill. areas; and (3) tertiary response, determining whether Industry activity Oil spills in the sea-ice environment, involving capture, cleaning, treatment, would have a negligible effect on at the ice edge, in leads, polynyas, and and release of wildlife. If the decision is walruses and polar bears, the Service similar areas of importance to walruses made to conduct response activities, evaluated the potential impacts of oil and polar bears, are of particular primary and secondary response options spills within the Beaufort Sea ITR concern. Oil spilled in those areas will be vigorously applied. Tertiary region. presents an even greater challenge response capability has been developed because of both the difficulties by the Service and partners, though Pacific Walrus associated with cleaning oil in sea-ice, such response efforts would most likely As stated earlier, the Beaufort Sea is and the presence of wildlife in those only be able to handle a few animals at not within the primary range for areas. As additional offshore Industry a time. More information is available in walruses. Therefore, the probability of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36684 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

walruses encountering oil or waste warmer temperatures. Direct exposure which is discussed in the following Risk products as a result of a spill from of walruses to oil is not believed to have Assessment Analysis, limit potential Industry activities is low. Onshore oil any effect on the insulating capacity of impacts to walruses to only certain spills would not impact walruses unless their skin and blubber, although it is events (i.e., a large oil spill) and then oil moved into the offshore unknown if oil could affect their only to a limited number of individuals. environment. In the event of a spill that peripheral blood flow. Fueling crews have personnel that are occurs during the open-water season, oil Damage to the skin of pinnipeds can trained to handle operational spills and in the water column could drift offshore occur from contact with oil because contain them. If a small offshore spill and possibly encounter a small number some of the oil penetrates into the skin, occurs, spill response vessels are of walruses. Oil spills from offshore causing inflammation and death of some stationed in close proximity and platforms could also contact walruses tissue. The dead tissue is discarded, respond immediately. A detailed under certain conditions. Spilled oil leaving behind an ulcer. While these discussion of oil spill prevention and during the ice-covered season not skin lesions have only rarely been found response for walruses can be found at: cleaned up could become part of the ice on oiled seals, the effects on walruses https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/plans/ substrate and be eventually released may be greater because of a lack of hair uc/Annex%20G%20(Oct%202012).pdf. back into the environment during the to protect the skin. Direct exposure to Polar Bear following open-water season. During oil can also result in conjunctivitis. Like spring melt, oil would be collected by other pinnipeds, walruses are To date, large oil spills from Industry spill response activities, but it could susceptible to oil contamination in their activities in the Beaufort Sea and coastal eventually contact a limited number of eyes. Continuous exposure to oil will regions that would impact polar bears walruses. quickly cause permanent eye damage. have not occurred, although the interest Little is known about the effects of oil Inhalation of hydrocarbon fumes in, and the development of, offshore specifically on walruses as no studies presents another threat to marine hydrocarbon reservoirs has increased have been conducted. Hypothetically, mammals. In studies conducted on the potential for large offshore oil spills. walruses may react to oil much like pinnipeds, pulmonary hemorrhage, With limited background information other pinnipeds. Walruses are not likely inflammation, congestion, and nerve available regarding oil spills in the to ingest oil while grooming since damage resulted after exposure to Arctic environment, the outcome of walruses have very little hair and concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a such a spill is uncertain. For example, exhibit no grooming behavior. Adult period of 24 hours. If the walruses were in the event of a large spill equal to a walruses may not be severely affected also under stress from molting, rupture in the Northstar pipeline and a by the oil spill through direct contact, pregnancy, etc., the increased heart rate complete drain of the subsea portion of but they will be extremely sensitive to associated with the stress would the pipeline (approximately 5,900 bbl), any habitat disturbance by human noise circulate the hydrocarbons more oil would be influenced by seasonal and response activities. In addition, due quickly, lowering the tolerance weather and sea conditions including to the gregarious nature of walruses, an threshold for ingestion or inhalation. temperature, winds, wave action, and oil spill would most likely affect Walruses are benthic feeders, and currents. Weather and sea conditions multiple individuals in the area. much of the benthic prey contaminated also affect the type of equipment needed Walruses may also expose themselves by an oil spill would be killed for spill response and the effectiveness more often to the oil that has immediately. Others that survived of spill cleanup. Based on the accumulated at the edge of a would become contaminated from oil in experiences of cleanup efforts following contaminated shore or ice lead if they bottom sediments, possibly resulting in the Exxon Valdez oil spill, where repeatedly enter and exit the water. slower growth and a decrease in logistical support was readily available, Walrus calves are most likely to suffer reproduction. Bivalve mollusks, a spill response may be largely the effects of oil contamination. Female favorite prey species of the walrus, are unsuccessful in open-water conditions. walruses with calves are very attentive, not effective at processing hydrocarbon Indeed, spill response drills have been and the calf will stay close to its mother compounds, resulting in highly unsuccessful in the cleanup of oil in at all times, including when the female concentrated accumulations and long- broken-ice conditions. is foraging for food. Walrus calves can term retention of the contamination Small spills of oil or waste products swim almost immediately after birth within the organism. Specifically, throughout the year could potentially and will often join their mother in the bivalve mollusks bioconcentrate impact some bears. The effects of water. It is possible that an oiled calf polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons fouling fur or ingesting oil or wastes, will be unrecognizable to its mother (PAHs), a particularly toxic fraction of depending on the amount of oil or either by sight or by smell, and be oil. PAHs may cause a variety of chronic wastes involved, could be short-term or abandoned. However, the greater threat toxic effects in exposed organisms, result in death. For example, in April may come from an oiled calf that is including enzyme induction, immune 1988, a dead polar bear was found on unable to swim away from the impairment, or cancer, among others. In Leavitt Island, northeast of Oliktok contamination and a devoted mother addition, because walruses feed Point. The cause of death was that would not leave without the calf, primarily on mollusks, they may be determined to be due to a mixture that resulting in the potential mortality of more vulnerable to a loss of this prey included ethylene glycol and both animals. Further, a nursing calf species than other pinnipeds that feed Rhodamine B dye (Amstrup et al. 1989). might ingest oil if the cow was oiled, on a larger variety of prey. Furthermore, Again, in 2012, two dead polar bears also increasing the risk of injury or complete recovery of a bivalve mollusk that had been exposed to Rhodamine B mortality. population may take 10 years or more, were found on Narwhal Island, Walruses have thick skin and blubber forcing walruses to find other food northwest of Endicott. While those layers for insulation. Heat loss is resources or move to nontraditional bears’ deaths were clearly human- regulated by control of peripheral blood areas. caused, investigations were unable to flow through the animal’s skin and The relatively few walruses in the identify a source for the chemicals. blubber. The peripheral blood flow is Beaufort Sea and the low potential for Rhodamine B is commonly used on the decreased in cold water and increased at a large oil spill (1,000 bbl or more), North Slope of Alaska by many people

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36685

for many uses, including Industry. the hydrocarbons. Petroleum on land and the duration of time they Without identified sources of hydrocarbons irritate or destroy spent there (Schliebe et al. 2006). contamination, those bear deaths cannot epithelial cells lining the stomach and Hence, bears concentrated in areas be attributed to Industry activity. intestine, thereby affecting motility, where beach-cast marine mammal During the ice-covered season, digestion, and absorption. carcasses occur during the fall would mobile, non-denning bears would have Polar bears swimming in, or walking likely be more susceptible to oiling. a higher probability of encountering oil adjacent to, an oil spill could inhale The persistence of toxic subsurface oil or other production wastes than non- toxic, volatile organic compounds from and chronic exposures, even at mobile, denning females. Current petroleum vapors. Vapor inhalation by sublethal levels, can have long-term management practices by Industry, such polar bears could result in damage to effects on wildlife (Peterson et al. 2003). as requiring the proper use, storage, and the respiratory and central nervous Exposure to PAHs can have chronic disposal of hazardous materials, systems, depending on the amount of effects because some effects are minimize the potential occurrence of exposure. sublethal (e.g., enzyme induction or such incidents. In the event of an oil Oil may also affect food sources of immune impairment) or delayed (e.g., spill, it is also likely that polar bears polar bears. Seals that die as a result of cancer). Although it is true that some would be intentionally hazed to keep an oil spill could be scavenged by polar bears may be directly affected by spilled them away from the area, further bears. This food source would increase oil initially, the long-term impact could reducing the likelihood of impacting the exposure of the bears to hydrocarbons be much greater. Long-term effects population. and could result in lethal impacts or could be substantial through complex In 1980, Canadian scientists reduced survival to individual bears. A environmental interactions and performed experiments that studied the local reduction in ringed seal numbers compromised health of exposed effects to polar bears of exposure to oil. as a result of direct or indirect effects of animals. For example, PAHs can impact Effects on experimentally oiled polar oil could temporarily affect the local the food web by concentrating in filter- bears (where bears were forced to distribution of polar bears. A reduction feeding organisms, thus affecting fish remain in oil for prolonged periods of in density of seals as a direct result of that feed on those organisms, and the time) included acute inflammation of mortality from contact with spilled oil predators of those fish, such as the the nasal passages, marked epidermal could result in polar bears not using a ringed seals that polar bears prey upon. responses, anemia, anorexia, and particular area for hunting. Possible How these complex interactions would biochemical changes indicative of impacts from the loss of a food source affect polar bears is not well stress, renal impairment, and death. could reduce recruitment and/or understood, but sublethal, chronic Many effects did not become evident survival. effects of an oil spill may affect the until several weeks after the experiment Spilled oil can concentrate and polar bear population due to reduced (Oritsland et al. 1981). accumulate in leads and openings that Oiling of the pelt causes significant occur during spring breakup and fitness of surviving animals. thermoregulatory problems by reducing autumn freeze-up periods. Such a Polar bears are biological sinks for the insulation value. Irritation or concentration of spilled oil would some pollutants, such as damage to the skin by oil may further increase the chance that polar bears and polychlorinated biphenyls or contribute to impaired their principal prey would be oiled. To organochlorine pesticides, because they thermoregulation. Experiments on live access ringed and bearded seals, polar are an apex predator of the Arctic polar bears and pelts showed that the bears in the SBS concentrate in shallow ecosystem and are also opportunistic thermal value of the fur decreased waters less than 300 m (984 ft) deep scavengers of other marine mammals. significantly after oiling, and oiled bears over the continental shelf and in areas Additionally, their diet is composed showed increased metabolic rates and with greater than 50 percent ice cover mostly of high-fat sealskin and blubber elevated skin temperature. Oiled bears (Durner et al. 2004). (Norstrom et al. 1988). The highest are also likely to ingest oil as they Due to their seasonal use of nearshore concentrations of persistent organic groom to restore the insulation value of habitat, the times of greatest impact pollutants in Arctic marine mammals the oiled fur. from an oil spill to polar bears are likely have been found in seal-eating walruses Oil ingestion by polar bears through the open-water and broken-ice periods and polar bears near Svalbard (Norstrom consumption of contaminated prey, and (summer and fall). This scenario is et al. 1988, Andersen et al. 2001, Muir by grooming or nursing, could have important because distributions of polar et al. 1999). As such, polar bears would pathological effects, depending on the bears are not uniform through time. be susceptible to the effects of amount of oil ingested and the Nearshore and offshore polar bear bioaccumulation of contaminants, individual’s physiological state. Death densities are greatest in fall, and polar which could affect their reproduction, could occur if a large amount of oil were bear use of coastal areas during the fall survival, and immune systems. ingested or if volatile components of oil open-water period has increased in In addition, subadult polar bears are were aspirated into the lungs. Indeed, recent years in the Beaufort Sea. An more vulnerable than adults to two of three bears died in the Canadian analysis of data collected from 2001– environmental effects (Taylor et al. experiment, and it was suspected that 2005 during the fall open-water period 1987). Subadult polar bears would be the ingestion of oil was a contributing concluded: (1) On average most prone to the lethal and sublethal factor to the deaths. Experimentally approximately 4 percent of the effects of an oil spill due to their oiled bears ingested much oil through estimated polar bears in the Southern proclivity for scavenging (thus grooming. Much of it was eliminated by Beaufort population were observed increasing their exposure to oiled vomiting and in the feces; some was onshore in the fall; (2) 80 percent of marine mammals) and their absorbed and later found in body fluids bears onshore occurred within 15 km (9 inexperience in hunting. Because of the and tissues. mi) of subsistence-harvested bowhead greater maternal investment a weaned Ingestion of sublethal amounts of oil whale carcasses, where large subadult represents, reduced survival can have various physiological effects congregations of polar bears have been rates of subadult polar bears have a on polar bears, depending on whether observed feeding; and (3) sea-ice greater impact on population growth the animal is able to excrete or detoxify conditions affected the number of bears rate and sustainable harvest than

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36686 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

reduced litter production rates (Taylor polar bears. This information included: probability of a spill occurring would be et al. 1987). (1) The description of existing offshore different for each site depending upon Evaluation of the potential impacts of oil and gas production facilities oil type, depth, oil flow rates, etc. spilled Industry waste products and oil previously discussed in the Description BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis suggest that individual bears could be of Activities section; (2) polar bear adversely impacted by exposure to these distribution information previously Because the BOEM OSRA provides substances (Oritsland et al. 1981). The discussed in the Biological Information the most current and rigorous treatment major concern regarding a large oil spill section; (3) BOEM Oil-Spill Risk of potential oil spills in the Beaufort Sea is the impact such a spill would have on Analysis (OSRA) for the OCS, including Planning Area, our analysis of potential the rates of recruitment and survival of polar bear environmental resource areas oil spill impacts applied BOEM’s OSRA the SBS polar bear population. If an oil (ERAs) and land segments (LSs), which (MMS 2008a) to help analyze potential spill killed a small number of bears, the allowed us to qualitatively analyze the impacts of a large oil spill originating in SBS population may be able to survive risk to polar bears and their habitat from the Beaufort Sea ITR region to polar and continue to sustain the current level a marine oil spill; and (4) the most bears. The OSRA is a computer model of subsistence harvest. However, if a recent polar bear risk assessment from that analyzes how and where large large oil spill killed large numbers of the previous ITRs. offshore spills will likely move (Smith polar bears, the SBS population may Development of offshore production et al. 1982). To estimate the likely experience reduced rates of recruitment facilities with supporting pipelines trajectory of large oil spills, the OSRA and survival and subsistence harvest increases the potential for large offshore model used information about the could become unsustainable. Polar bear spills. The probability of a large oil spill physical environment, including data deaths from an oil spill could be caused from offshore oil and gas facilities and on wind, sea-ice, and currents. As a by direct exposure to the oil. However, the risk to polar bears is a scenario that conditional model, the OSRA is a indirect effects, such as a reduction of has been considered in previous hypothetical analysis of an oil spill. prey or scavenging contaminated regulations (71 FR 43926, August 2, The BOEM OSRA model was carcasses, could also cause health 2006 and 76 FR 47010, August 3, 2011). developed for the Federal offshore effects, death, or otherwise affect rates With the limited background waters and does not include analysis of of recruitment and survival. Depending information available regarding the oil spills in the State of Alaska- on the type and amount of oil or wastes effects of large oil spills on polar bears controlled nearshore waters. Northstar, involved and the timing and location of in the marine Arctic environment, the Oooguruk, Spy Island, and the Endicott/ a spill, impacts could be acute, chronic, impact of a large oil spill is uncertain. Liberty complex are located in temporary, or lethal. In order for the As far as is known, polar bears have not nearshore State waters. Northstar has rates of polar bear reproduction, been affected by oil spilled as a result one Federal well, and Liberty is a recruitment, or survival to be impacted, of North Slope Industry activities. Federal reservoir to be developed from a large-volume oil spill would have to In order to effectively evaluate how a State waters. Although the OSRA cannot take place. The following section large oil spill may affect polar bears, we calculate trajectories of oil spills analyzes the likelihood and potential considered the following factors in originating from specific locations in the effects of such a large-volume oil spill. developing our oil spill assessment for nearshore area, it can be used to help polar bears: The origin (location) of a examine how habitat may be affected by Risk Assessment of Potential Effects large spill; the volume of a spill; oil a spill should one originate in the OCS. Upon Polar Bears From a Large Oil viscosity; accessibility to spill site; spill We can then compare the location of the Spill in the Beaufort Sea trajectory; time of year; weather affected habitat to habitat use by bears. In this section, we qualitatively assess conditions (i.e., wind, temperature, The OSRA model predicted where the the likelihood that polar bears may be precipitation); environmental oil trajectory would go if the oil oiled by a large oil spill. We considered: conditions (i.e., presence and thickness persisted as a slick at a particular time (1) The probability of a large oil spill of ice); number, age, and sex of polar of year. Oil spills of less than 1,000 bbl occurring in the Beaufort Sea; (2) the bears that are (or likely to be) affected; are not expected to persist on the water probability of that oil spill impacting degree of contact; importance of affected long enough to warrant a trajectory coastal polar bear habitat; (3) the habitat; and mitigation measures to analysis. For this reason, we only probability of polar bears being in the prevent bears from encountering spilled analyzed the effects of a large oil spill. area and coming into contact with that oil. Although no large spills from oil and large oil spill; and (4) the number of The oil-spill scenario for this analysis gas activities have occurred on the polar bears that could potentially be considers the potential impacts of a Alaska OCS to date, the large spill impacted by the spill. Although the large oil spill (i.e., 1,000 bbl or more) volume assumptions used by BOEM majority of the information in this from one of the offshore Industry were based on the reported spills from evaluation is qualitative, the probability facilities: Northstar, Spy Island, oil exploration and production in the of all of these factors occurring Oooguruk, Endicott, or the future Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS regions. sequentially in a manner that impacts Liberty. Estimating a large oil-spill BOEM used the median spill size in the polar bears in the Beaufort Sea is low. occurrence is accomplished by Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS in the Since walruses are not often found in examining a wide variety of period 1985–1999 as the likely large the Beaufort Sea, and there is little probabilities. Uncertainty exists spill size for analysis purposes. The information available regarding the regarding the location, number, and size median size of a large crude oil spill potential effects of an oil spill upon of a large oil spill and the wind, ice, and from a pipeline in the period 1985–1999 walruses, this analysis emphasizes polar current conditions at the time of a spill, on the U.S. OCS was 4,600 bbl, and the bears. but we have made every effort to average was 6,700 bbl (Anderson and The analysis was based on polar bear identify the most likely spill scenarios LaBelle 2000). The median large spill distribution and habitat use using four and sources of risk to polar bears. size for a platform on the OCS over the sources of information that, when Conditional probabilities analysis entire record in the period 1964–1999 is combined, allowed the Service to make assumes that a large spill has occurred 1,500 bbl, and the average is 3,300 bbl conclusions on the risk of oil spills to and that no cleanup takes place. The (Anderson and LaBelle 2000).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36687

The OSRA estimated that the were considered extremely unlikely to of a large spill occurring during OCS statistical mean number of large spills is occur during oil and gas exploration. exploration drilling in the Beaufort is less than one over the 20-year life of The two sources of potential large crude small. In addition, it is important to past, present, and reasonably oil spills are from pipelines and long- note that Industry does not plan to foreseeable developments in the duration blowout resulting from a well- conduct drilling operations at more than Beaufort Sea Planning Area. In addition control incident. The loss of the entire three exploration sites in the Beaufort large spills are more likely to occur volume in an onshore pipeline between Sea OCS for the duration of the 5-year during development and production two valves would also result in a large regulatory period. than during exploration in the Arctic spill of crude oil. The BLM estimated a (MMS 2008). Our oil spill assessment 28 percent chance that one or more large Trajectory Estimates of Large Offshore during a 5-year regulatory period was crude oil spills would occur during 50 Oil Spills predicated on the same assumptions. years. Based on information on past Although it is reasonable to conclude Between 1971 and 2007, OCS spills, spill volumes close to the lower operators have produced almost 15 that the chance of one or more large end of the ‘‘large spill’’ range (1,000 bbl) spills occurring during the period of billion bbl of oil in the United States. are much more likely than spill volumes During this period, 2,645 spills totaled these regulations on the Alaskan OCS in the upper end of the range (119,999 from production activities is low, for approximately 164,100 bbl spilled bbl). BOEM (2014) considered spill sizes ∼ analysis purposes, we assume that a ( 0.001 percent of bbl produced), or of 1,700 and 5,100 bbl to be the largest about 1 bbl spilled for every 91,400 bbl large spill does occur in order to spill size likely to occur from a pipeline evaluate potential impacts to polar produced. Between 1993 and 2007, or facility, respectively. BOEM bears. The BOEM OSRA model analyzes almost 7.5 billion bbl of oil were estimated that the occurrence and the likely paths of more than two produced. During this period, 651 spills frequency of large and very large spills million simulated oil spills in relation totaled approximately 47,800 bbl spilled from OCS exploratory and delineation ∼ to the shoreline and biological, physical, ( 0.0006 percent of bbl produced), or wells at 0.003 (mean spill frequency per and sociocultural resource areas specific approximately 1 bbl spilled for every 1,000 years) and 2.39 × 10¥5 (mean spill to the Beaufort Sea. The chance that a 156,900 bbl produced. frequency per well), respectively (BOEM large oil spill will contact a specific Between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011). The approximate occurrence ERA of concern within a given time of 2014, the North Slope industrial area rates worldwide for very large oil spills travel from a certain location (launch reported an average of 59,043 gallons of are about one for every 270 billion bbl area or pipeline segment) is termed a spilled substances annually, with a total produced (BLM 2012). More locally (at of 138 crude oil spills. Statewide during Northstar), the statistical frequency of a ‘‘conditional probability.’’ Conditional this period, approximately 5.6 percent blowout well leading to a very large oil probabilities assume that no cleanup of the total volume of spilled material ¥ spill was estimated at 9.4 × 10 7 per activities take place, and that there are consisted of crude oil. The volume of well drilled (for volumes >130,000 bbl no efforts to contain the spill. We used spilled crude on the North Slope was, (BLM 2012)). Thus, while small spills the BOEM OSRA analysis from the therefore, estimated to be approximately (<50 bbl) are reasonably likely to occur, Arctic Multi-sale DEIS to estimate the 79 bbl (∼1,406 × 0.056 = ∼79). Recent very large oil spills are extremely conditional probabilities of a large spill large spills of crude oil have included unlikely to occur, and none have contacting sensitive ERAs pertinent to a subsurface release of 166 bbl from a occurred on Alaska’s North Slope or in polar bears. well at Milne Point, and a 100 bbl spill the Beaufort Sea to date. from a tank. Secondary containment Oil-Spill Persistence Across the United States, in the retained the smaller of these spills. How long an oil spill persists on Two large onshore terrestrial oil spills period 1971–2010, one well control water or on the shoreline can vary, have occurred as a result of pipeline incident resulted in a spill volume depending upon the size of the oil spill, failures. In the spring of 2006, estimated at 4.9 million bbl (210 million the environmental conditions at the approximately 6,200 bbl of crude oil gal) and that was the Deepwater Horizon time of the spill, and the substrate of the spilled from a corroded pipeline event. The large oil spill estimates for operated by BP Exploration (Alaska). the draft Environmental Impact shoreline. In its large oil spill analysis, The spill impacted approximately 0.8 ha Statement (DEIS) of the Beaufort Sea BOEM assumed 1,500-bbl and 4,600-bbl (∼2 ac). In November 2009, a spill of and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas are spills could last up to 30 days on the approximately 1,150 bbl from a still considered valid despite the water as a coherent slick based on oil ‘‘common line’’ carrying oil, water, and Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Geologic weathering properties and dispersal natural gas operated by BP occurred as and other conditions in the Arctic OCS data specific to North Slope crude oils. well, impacting approximately 780 m2 are substantially different from those in Therefore, we assumed that winter (∼8,400 ft2). None of these spills were the Gulf of Mexico, including much spills (October–June) could last up to known to impact polar bears, in part shallower well depth and the resulting 180 days as a coherent slick (i.e., if a due to the locations and timing. Both lower pressures, such that BOEM coherent slick were to freeze into ice sites were within or near Industry currently does not believe that the over winter, it would melt out as a slick facilities not frequented by polar bears, Deepwater horizon incident serves as a in spring). and they are not typically observed in predictor for the likelihood or We used three BOEM launch areas the affected areas during the time of the magnitude of a very large oil spill event (LAs), LA 8, LA 10, LA 12, and three spills and subsequent cleanup. in the Beaufort Sea. Considering the low pipeline segments (PLs), PL 10, PL 11, The BLM and BOEM modelled the number of exploratory wells (84) that and PL 12, from Appendix A of the likelihood of spills occurring during have occurred in the Beaufort Sea Arctic Multi-sale DEIS (Map A.1–4) to exploration and development in the Alaska OCS (BOEM 2011), the low rate represent the oil spills moving from NPR–A and in the Beaufort and Chukchi of exploratory drilling blowouts per hypothetical offshore areas. These LAs Sea planning area (BLM 2012 and well drilled, and the low rate of well and PLs were selected because of their BOEM 2011, respectively). Large (≥1,000 control incidents that spill fluids, it is close proximity to current offshore bbl) or very large spills (≥120,000 bbl) reasonable to conclude that the chance facilities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36688 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Oil-Spill-Trajectory Model Assumptions as though no oil spill response action is DEIS, Appendix A, we chose ERAs and taken; and large oil spills stop when LSs to represent areas of concern For purposes of its oil spill trajectory they contact the mainland coastline. pertinent to polar bears (MMS 2008a). simulation, BOEM made the following Those ERAs and LSs and the assumptions: All spills occur Analysis of the Conditional Probability Results conditional probabilities that a large oil instantaneously; large oil spills occur in spill originating from the selected LAs the hypothetical origin areas or along As noted above, the chance that a or PLs could affect those ERAs and LSs the hypothetical pipeline segments large oil spill will contact a specific are presented in Table 1. From Table 1, noted above; large spills do not weather ERA of concern within a given time of we noted the highest chance of contact for purposes of trajectory analysis; travel from a certain location (LA or PL), weathering is calculated separately; the assuming a large spill occurs and that and the range of chances of contact that model does not simulate cleanup no cleanup takes place, is termed a could occur should a large spill occur scenarios; the oil spill trajectories move ‘‘conditional probability.’’ From the from LAs or PLs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36689

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP07JN16.001 36690 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Polar bears are most vulnerable to a during the summer season and contact on information developed for the large oil spill during the open-water the coastline within 60 days. The original Northstar and Liberty EISs. We period when bears form aggregations chance of a spill contacting the coast assumed that one large spill occurred onshore. In the Beaufort Sea these near Barrow (ERA 55, LS 85) would be during the 5-year period covered by the aggregations often form in the fall near as high as 5 percent (Table 1). regulations. A detailed description of subsistence-harvested bowhead whale All barrier islands are important the methodology can be found at 71 FR carcasses. Specific aggregation areas resting and travel corridors for polar 43926 (August 2, 2006). The second step include Point Barrow, Cross Island, and bears, and larger barrier islands that in the risk assessment was to estimate Kaktovik. In recent years, more than 60 contain tundra relief are also important the number of polar bears that could be polar bears have been observed feeding denning habitat. Tundra-bearing barrier impacted by a large spill. All modeled on whale carcasses just outside of islands within the geographic region polar bear grid cell locations that were Kaktovik, and in the autumn of 2002, and near oilfield development are the intersected by one or more cells of a NSB and Service biologists documented Jones Island group of Pingok, rasterized spill path (a modeled group of more than 100 polar bears in and Bertoncini, Bodfish, Cottle, Howe, hundreds of oil particles forming a around Barrow. In order for significant Foggy, Tigvariak, and Flaxman islands. trajectory and pushed by winds and impacts to polar bears to occur, (1) a In addition, Cross Island has gravel currents and impeded by ice) were large oil spill would have to occur, (2) relief where polar bears have denned. considered ‘‘oiled’’ by a spill. For oil would have to contact an area where The Jones Island group is located in purposes of the analysis, if a bear polar bears aggregate, and (3) the ERA 92 and LS 97. If a spill were to contacted oil, the contact was assumed aggregation of polar bears would have to originate from an LA 8 pipeline segment to be lethal. This analysis involved occur at the same time as the spill. The during the summer months, the estimating the distribution of bears that risk of all three of these events occurring probability that this spill would contact could be in the area and overlapping simultaneously is low. these land segments could be as great as polar bear distributions and seasonal We identified polar bear aggregations 8 percent. The probability that a spill aggregations with oil spill trajectories. in environmental resource areas and from LA 10 would contact the Jones The trajectories previously calculated non-grouped land segments (ERA 55, Island group would range from 1 for Northstar and Liberty sites were 93, 95, 96, 100; LS 85, 107). Assuming percent to as high as 11 percent. used. The trajectories for Northstar and a spill occurs during summer or winter, Likewise, for LA 12, PL 11 the range Liberty were provided by the BOEM and the OSRA estimates the chance of would be from 4 percent to as high as reported in Amstrup et al. (2006). contacting these aggregations is less 12 percent, and for LA 12, PL 12 the BOEM estimated probable sizes of oil than 13 percent (Table 1). The OSRA range would be from 3 percent to as spills from a pinhole leak to a rupture estimates for LA12 has the highest high as 12 percent. in the transportation pipeline. These chance of a large spill contacting ERA Risk Assessment From Prior ITRs spill sizes ranged from a minimum of 96 (Midway, Cross, and Bartlett islands). 125 to a catastrophic release event of Some polar bears will aggregate at these In previous ITRs, we used a risk 5,912 bbl. Researchers set the size of the islands during August–October (3 assessment method that considered oil modeled spill at the scenario of 5,912 months). If a large oil spill occurred and spill probability estimates for two sites bbl, caused by a pinhole or small leak contacted those aggregation sites outside (Northstar and Liberty), oil spill for 60 days under ice without detection. of the timeframe of use by polar bears, trajectory models, and a polar bear The second step of the risk potential impacts to polar bears would distribution model based on location of assessment analysis incorporated polar be reduced. satellite-collared females during bear densities overlapped with the oil Coastal areas provide important September and October (68 FR 66744, spill trajectories. To accomplish this, in denning habitat for polar bears, such as November 28, 2003;71 FR 43926, 2004, USGS completed an analysis the ANWR and nearshore barrier islands August 2, 2006; and 76 FR 47010, investigating the potential effects of (containing tundra habitat) (Amstrup August 3, 2011). To support the analysis hypothetical oil spills on polar bears. 1993, Amstrup and Gardner 1994, for this action, we reviewed the Movement and distribution information Durner et al. 2006, USFWS unpubl. previous analysis and used the data to was derived from radio and satellite data). Considering that 65 percent of compare the potential effects of a large locations of collared adult females. confirmed terrestrial dens found in oil spill in a nearshore production Density estimates were used to Alaska in the period 1981–2005 were on facility (less than 5 mi), such as Liberty, determine the distribution of polar bears coastal or island bluffs (Durner et al. and a facility located further offshore, in the Beaufort Sea. Researchers then 2006), oiling of such habitats could have such as Northstar. Even though the risk created a grid system centered over the negative effects on polar bears, although assessment of 2006 did not specifically Northstar production island and the the specific nature and ramifications of model spills from the Oooguruk or Liberty site to estimate the number of such effects are unknown. Nikaitchuq sites, we believed it was bears expected to occur within each 1- Assuming a large oil spill occurs, and reasonable to assume that the analysis km2 grid cell. Each of the simulated oil extrapolating the OSRA estimates to for Liberty, and indirectly Northstar, spills were overlaid with the polar bear tundra relief barrier islands (ERA 92, 93, adequately reflected the potential distribution grid. Finally, the likelihood and 94, LS 97 and 102), these areas have impacts likely to occur from an oil spill of occurrence of bears oiled during the up to a 12 percent chance of a large spill at either of these additional locations duration of the 5-year incidental take contacting them (a range of less than 0.5 due to the similarity in the nearshore regulations was estimated. This percent to 12 percent) from LA 12 locations. likelihood was calculated by (Table 1). The OSRA estimates suggest multiplying the number of polar bears that there is an 11 percent chance that Methodology of Prior Risk Assessment oiled by the spill by the percentage of oil would contact the coastline of the The first step of the risk assessment time bears were at risk for each period ANWR (LS 138). The Kaktovik area analysis was to examine oil spill of the year. (ERA 95 and 100, LS 107) has up to a probabilities at offshore production sites In summary, the maximum numbers 5 percent chance of a spill contacting for the summer (July–October) and of bears potentially oiled by a 5,912 bbl the coastline, assuming spills occur winter (November–June) seasons based spill during the September open-water

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36691

season from Northstar was 27, and the Northstar is not sheltered by barrier With the limited background maximum from Liberty was 23, islands. By comparison through information available regarding oil assuming a large oil spill occurred and modeling, the land-fast ice inside the spills in the Arctic environment, it is no cleanup or mitigation measures take shelter of the barrier islands appeared to unknown what the outcome of such a place. Potentially oiled polar bears dramatically restrict the extent of most spill event would be if one were to ranged up to 74 bears with up to 55 oil spills in comparison to Northstar, occur. Polar bears could encounter oil bears during October in mixed-ice which lies outside the barrier islands spills during the open-water and ice- conditions for Northstar and Liberty, and in deeper water. However, it should covered seasons in offshore or onshore respectively. Median number of bears be noted that while oil spreads more in habitat. Although most polar bears in oiled by the 5,912 bbl spill from the deep water and breaks up faster in the SBS population spend a large Northstar simulation site in September deeper waters where wind and wave amount of their time offshore on the and October were 3 and 11 bears, action are higher, oil persists longer in pack-ice, it is likely that some bears respectively. Median numbers of bears shallow waters and along the shore. would encounter oil from a large spill oiled from the Liberty simulation site Based on the simulations, a nearshore that persisted for 30 days or more. for September and October were 1 and island production site (less than 5 mi Although the extent of impacts from 3 bears, respectively. Variation occurred from shore) would potentially involve a large oil spill would depend on the among oil spill scenarios and was the less risk of polar bears being oiled than size, location, and timing of spills result of differences in oil spill a facility located further offshore relative to polar bear distributions and trajectories among those scenarios and (greater than 5 mi). For any spill event, on the effectiveness of spill response not the result of variation in the seasonality of habitat use by bears will and cleanup efforts, under some estimated bear densities. For example, be an important variable in assessing scenarios, population-level impacts in October, 75 percent of trajectories risk to polar bears. During the fall could be expected. A large spill from the 5,912 bbl spill affected 20 or season when a portion of the SBS bear originating from a marine oil platform fewer polar bears from spills originating population aggregate on terrestrial sites could have significant impacts on polar at the Northstar simulation site and 9 or and use barrier islands for travel bears if an oil spill contacted an fewer bears from spills originating at the corridors, spill events from nearshore aggregation of polar bears. Likewise, a Liberty simulation site. industrial facilities may pose more spill occurring during the broken-ice When calculating the probability that chance of exposing bears to oil due to period could significantly impact the a 5,912 bbl spill would oil 5 or more its persistence in the nearshore SBS polar bear population in part bears during the annual fall period, we environment. Conversely, during the because polar bears may be more active found that oil spills and trajectories ice-covered and summer seasons, during this season. were more likely to affect fewer than 5 Industry facilities located further In the event that an offshore oil spill bears versus more than 5 bears. Thus, offshore (greater than 5 mi) may contaminated numerous bears, a for Northstar, the chance that a 5,912 increase the chance of bears being potentially significant impact to the SBS bbl oil spill affected (resulting in exposed to oil as bears will be population could result. This effect mortality) 5 or more bears was 1.0–3.4 associated with the ice habitat. would be magnified in and around areas percent; 10 or more bears was 0.7–2.3 of polar bear aggregations. Bears could Conclusion of Risk Assessment percent; and 20 or more bears was 0.2– also be affected indirectly either by food 0.8 percent. For Liberty, the probability In summary, to date documented oil contamination or by chronic lasting of a spill that would affect 5 or more spill-related impacts in the marine effects caused by exposure to oil. During bears was 0.3–7.4 percent; 10 or more environment to polar bears in the the 5-year period of these regulations, bears, 0.1–0.4 percent; and 20 or more Beaufort Sea by the oil and gas Industry however, the chance of a large spill bears, 0.1–0.2 percent. are minimal. No large spills by Industry occurring is low. in the marine environment have While there is uncertainty in the Discussion of Prior Risk Assessment occurred in Arctic Alaska. Nevertheless, analysis, certain factors must align for After reviewing the prior risk the possibility of oil spills from Industry polar bears to be impacted by a large oil assessment, we have concluded that it activities and the subsequent impacts on spill occurring in the marine remains a valid methodology and polar bears that contact oil remain a environment. First, a large spill must analysis for use in the current proposed major concern. occur. Second, the large spill must rule. The key conditions and There has been much discussion contaminate areas where bears may be considerations used in the analysis about effective techniques for located. Third, polar bears must be remain valid today. For this reason, we containing, recovering, and cleaning up seasonally distributed within the find that it is appropriate to continue to oil spills in Arctic marine affected region when the oil is present. rely on the results of the analysis as it environments, particularly the concern Assuming a large spill occurs, BOEM’s was set forth in 71 FR 43926, August 2, that effective oil spill cleanup during OSRA estimated that there is up to a 13 2006. poor weather and broken-ice conditions percent chance that a large spill from The location of Industry sites within has not been proven. Given this the analyzed sites (LAs 8, 10, and 12 the marine environment is important uncertainty, limiting the likelihood of a and PLs 10, 11, and 12) would contact when analyzing the potential for polar large oil spill becomes an even more Cross Island (ERA 96) within 60 days, bears to contact a large oil spill. important consideration. Industry oil as much as an 11 percent chance that it Simulations from the prior risk spill contingency plans describe would contact Barter Island and/or the assessment suggested that bears have a methodologies in place to prevent a coast of the ANWR (ERA 95 and 100, LS higher probability of being oiled from spill from occurring. For example, all 107 and 138), and up to a 5 percent facilities located further offshore, such current offshore production facilities chance that an oil spill would contact as Northstar. Northstar Island is nearer have spill containment systems in place the coast near Barrow (ERA 55, LS 85) the active ice zone and in deeper water at the well heads. In the event an oil during the summer time period. Data than Endicott/Liberty, Oooguruk, and discharge should occur, containment from polar bear coastal surveys indicate Nikaitchuq, areas where higher bear systems are designed to collect the oil that polar bears are unevenly and densities were calculated. Furthermore, before it contacts the environment. seasonally distributed along the coastal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36692 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

areas of the Beaufort Sea ITR region. into the Beaufort Sea will increase. We walruses and polar bears. For Industry Seasonally only a portion of the SBS conclude that over the 5-year period of activities in terrestrial environments, population utilizes the coastline these ITRs, Industry activities will where denning polar bears may be a between the Alaska/Canada border and potentially result in a small number of factor, mitigation measures will require Barrow and only a portion of those bears Level B takes of walruses. that den detection surveys be conducted could be in the oil-spill-affected region. As we stated previously, from 2010 at least a 1.6-km (1-mi) distance from As a result of the information through 2014, Industry made 1,234 any known polar bear den. A full considered here, the Service concludes reports of polar bears comprising 1,911 description of the mitigation, that the likelihood of an offshore spill bears. We found that as much as 42 monitoring, and reporting requirements from an offshore production facility in percent of the SBS polar bear associated with an LOA can be found in the next 5 years is low. Moreover, in the population may have been observed by 50 CFR 18.128. unlikely event of a large spill, the Industry personnel over that time Conclusion likelihood that spills would period, though this is likely an contaminate areas occupied by large overestimate due to the nature of the We expect that only a small numbers of bears is low. While Industry observation data. When we proportion of the Pacific walrus individual bears could be negatively evaluated the effects upon the 1,911 population or the SBS polar bear affected by a spill, the potential for a bears observed, we found that 81 population are likely to be affected by population-level effect is low unless the percent (1,549) resulted in instances of Industry activities because: (1) Only a spill contacted an area where large non-taking. Over those 5 years, Level B small proportion of the walrus or polar numbers of polar bears were gathered. takes of polar bears totaled 338, bear population will occur in the areas Known polar bear aggregations tend to approximately 18 percent of the where Industry activities will occur; (2) be seasonal during the fall, further observed bears, or 7.5 percent of the only small numbers will be impacted minimizing the potential of a spill to SBS population. We conclude that over because walruses are extralimital in the impact the population. Therefore, we the 5-year period of these ITRs, Industry Beaufort Sea and SBS polar bears are conclude that the likelihood of a large activities will result in a similarly small widely distributed throughout their spill occurring is low, but if a large spill number of Level B takes of polar bears. expansive range, which encompasses does occur, the likelihood that it would 2. Within the specified geographical areas beyond the Beaufort Sea ITR contaminate areas occupied by large region, the area of Industry activity is region; and (3) the monitoring numbers of polar bears is also low. If a expected to be small relative to the requirements and mitigation measures large spill does occur, we conclude that range of walruses and polar bears. described below will further reduce Walruses and polar bears range well only small numbers of polar bears are potential impacts. beyond the boundaries of the proposed likely to be affected, though some bears Beaufort Sea ITR region. The facts that Negligible Impacts Determination may be killed, and there would be only walruses are extralimital in the Beaufort a negligible impact to the SBS Based upon our review of the nature, Sea and polar bears move through the population. scope, and timing of Industry activities areas of Industry activity seasonally and required mitigation measures, and Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses suggest that Industry activities in the in consideration of the best available and Polar Bears geographic area of this proposed rule scientific information, we have will have relatively few interactions Small Numbers Determination with walruses and polar bears. As determined that the proposed activities The following analysis concludes that reported by AOGA, the total area of will have a negligible impact on only small numbers of walruses and infrastructure on the North Slope as of walruses and polar bears. Factors polar bears are likely to be subjected to 2012 was approximately 7,462 ha considered in our negligible effects Level B take by harassment incidental to (∼18,439 ac), or approximately 0.1 determination include: the described Industry activities relative percent of the Arctic Coastal Plain 1. The behavior and distribution of to their respective populations. between the Colville and Canning walruses and polar bears in areas that 1. The number of walruses and polar rivers. The 2012 estimated area of overlap with Industry activities are bears that will be harassed by Industry Industry activity was approximately expected to limit interactions of activity is expected to be small relative .025 percent of the geographic region of walruses and polar bears with those to the number of animals in their this proposed rule. This area is smaller activities. populations. when compared to the proportion of the The distribution and habitat use As stated previously, walruses are range of walruses or the SBS polar bear patterns of walruses and polar bears extralimital in the Beaufort Sea with population. Allowing for Industry indicates that relatively few animals nearly the entire walrus population activity area growth from 2012 through will occur in the proposed areas of found in the Chukchi and Bering seas. 2015, and anticipating the level of Industry activity at any particular time, Industry monitoring reports have activity proposed for the 5-year period and, therefore, few animals are likely to observed no more than 35 walruses of this proposed rule, the Service be affected. As discussed previously, between 1995 and 2012, with only a few concludes that the area of Industry only small numbers of walruses are observed instances of disturbance to activity will be relatively small likely to be found in the Beaufort Sea those walruses (AES Alaska 2015, compared to the range of walruses and where and when offshore Industry USFWS unpublished data). Between polar bears. activities are proposed. Likewise, SBS those years, Industry walrus 3. Monitoring requirements and polar bears are widely distributed, are observations in the Beaufort Sea ITR adaptive mitigation measures are most often closely associated with pack- region averaged approximately two expected to significantly limit the ice, and are unlikely to interact with walruses per year, although the actual number of incidental takes of animals. open-water industrial activities, and observations were of a single or a few Holders of an LOA will be required to their range is greater than the animals, often separated by several adopt monitoring requirements and geographic region of the proposed ITRs. years. We do not anticipate that mitigation measures designed to reduce 2. The predicted effects of Industry seasonal movements of a few walruses potential impacts of their operations on activities on walruses and polar bears

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36693

will be nonlethal, temporary takes of inherently small. Between 1995 and the nature of Industry activities; the animals. 2012 Industry observed no more than 35 potential effects of Industry activities The documented impacts of previous walruses in the Beaufort Sea ITRs and potential oil spills on the species; Industry activities on walruses and region, with only a few instances of the probability of oil spills occurring; polar bears, taking into consideration disturbance to some of those walruses. the documented impacts of Industry cumulative effects, suggests that the We do not anticipate the potential for activities on the species, taking into types of activities analyzed for this ITR any lethal take from the proposed consideration cumulative effects; the will have minimal effects and will be Industry activities. We estimate that potential impacts of climate change, short-term, temporary behavioral there will be no more than 10 Level B where both walruses and polar bears changes. The vast majority of reported harassment takes of Pacific walruses by can potentially be displaced from polar bear observations have been of Industry activities during the 5-year preferred habitat; mitigation measures polar bears moving through the period of these ITRs. designed to minimize Industry impacts through adaptive management; and oilfields, undisturbed by the Industry Polar Bear activity. other data provided by Industry 3. The footprint of the proposed Industry observation reports from the monitoring programs in the Beaufort Industry activities is expected to be period 2010–2014 indicate that on and Chukchi seas. small relative to the range of the walrus average 383 polar bears were observed We also considered the specific and polar bear populations. annually during Industry activities. Congressional direction in balancing the The relatively small area of Industry Some of these observations are sightings potential for a significant impact with activity compared to the range of of the same bears on different occasions. the likelihood of that event occurring. walruses and polar bears will reduce the While the majority of observations were The specific Congressional direction sightings with no interaction between that justifies balancing probabilities potential of their exposure to and ∼ disturbance from Industry activities. polar bears and Industry activity ( 81 with impacts follows: 4. Mitigation measures will limit percent of observed bears), takes by If potential effects of a specified activity potential effects of Industry activities. harassment do occur. According to are conjectural or speculative, a finding of Holders of an LOA will be required to Industry monitoring data, the number of negligible impact may be appropriate. A adopt monitoring requirements and Level B takes has averaged 68 per year finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the probability of occurrence is mitigation measures designed to reduce from 2010 through 2014. Based on this information, we low but the potential effects may be the potential impacts of their operations estimate that there will be no more than significant. In this case, the probability of on walruses and polar bears. Seasonal 340 Level B harassment takes of polar occurrence of impacts must be balanced with restrictions, early detection monitoring bears during the 5-year period of these the potential severity of harm to the species or stock when determining negligible impact. programs, den detection surveys for ITRs. All takes are anticipated to be polar bears, and adaptive mitigation and In applying this balancing test, the Service nonlethal Level B harassment involving will thoroughly evaluate the risks involved management responses based on real- short-term and temporary changes in time monitoring information (described and the potential impacts on marine mammal bear behavior. The required mitigation populations. Such determination will be in these regulations) will be used to and monitoring measures described in made based on the best available scientific avoid or minimize interactions with the regulations are expected to prevent information (53 FR 8474, March 15, 1988; walruses and polar bears and, therefore, injurious Level A takes, and, therefore, 132 Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October. 15, 1986)). limit potential Industry disturbance of the number of lethal takes is estimated We reviewed the effects of the oil and these animals. to be zero. gas Industry activities on walruses and polar bears, including impacts from Conclusion Negligible Impact noise, physical obstructions, human We, therefore, conclude that any Based on the best scientific encounters, and oil spills. Based on our incidental take reasonably likely to or information available, the results of review of these potential impacts, past reasonably expected to occur in Industry monitoring data from the LOA monitoring reports, and the association with the proposed Industry previous ITRs, the review of the biology and natural history of walrus activities addressed under these information generated by the listing of and polar bear, we conclude that any regulations will have no more than a the polar bear as a threatened species incidental take reasonably likely to or negligible impact on walruses and polar and the designation of polar bear critical reasonably expected to occur as a result bears within the Beaufort Sea region. habitat, the ongoing analysis of the of projected activities will have a We do not expect any resulting petition to list the Pacific walrus as a negligible impact on the walrus and disturbance to negatively impact the threatened species under the ESA, the polar bear populations. Furthermore, we rates of recruitment or survival for the results of our modeling assessments, do not expect these disturbances to walrus and polar bear populations. and the status of the population, we find affect the rates of recruitment or These regulations do not authorize that any incidental take reasonably survival for the walrus and polar bear lethal take, and we do not anticipate likely to result from the effects of populations. These regulations do not that any lethal take will occur. Industry activities during the period of authorize lethal take, and we do not Findings the proposed ITRs, in the Beaufort Sea anticipate any lethal take will occur. and adjacent northern coast of Alaska, The probability of an oil spill that will We make the following findings will have no more than a negligible cause significant impacts to walruses regarding this action: impact on walruses and polar bears. We and polar bears appears extremely low. Small Numbers do not expect that the total of these We have included information from disturbances will affect rates of both offshore and onshore projects in Pacific Walrus recruitment or survival for walruses or our oil spill analysis. We have analyzed Walruses are extralimital in the polar bears. In making this finding, we the likelihood of a marine oil spill of the Beaufort Sea, thus, the number of considered the following: The magnitude necessary to lethally take a walruses exposed to the impacts of the distribution of the species; the significant number of polar bears for proposed Industry activities will be biological characteristics of the species; offshore projects and, through a risk

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36694 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

assessment analysis, found that it is encounters may occur and Industry may communities. Industry will be required unlikely that there will be any lethal have to implement mitigation measures to contact subsistence communities that take associated with a release of oil. In more often, possibly increasing polar may be affected by its activities to the unlikely event of a catastrophic bear deterrence events. In addition, if discuss potential conflicts caused by spill, we will take immediate action to additional polar bear den locations are location, timing, and methods of minimize the impacts to these species detected within industrial activity areas, proposed operations. Industry must and reconsider the appropriateness of spatial and temporal mitigation make reasonable efforts to ensure that authorizations for incidental taking measures, including cessation of activities do not interfere with through section 101(a)(5)(A) of the activities, may be instituted more subsistence hunting and that adverse MMPA. frequently during the 5-year period of effects on the availability of walruses After considering the cumulative the rule. and polar bear are minimized. Although effects of existing and future We have evaluated climate change in multiple meetings for multiple projects development, production, and regard to walruses and polar bears. from numerous operators have already exploration activities, and the Climate change is a global phenomenon taken place, no official concerns have likelihood of any impacts, both onshore and was considered as the overall driver been voiced by the Native communities and offshore, we find that the total of effects that could alter walrus and with regard to Industry activities expected takings resulting from oil and polar bear habitat and behavior. Though limiting availability of walruses or polar gas Industry activities will affect no climate change is a pressing bears for subsistence uses. However, more than small numbers and will have conservation issue for walruses and should such a concern be voiced as no more than a negligible impact on the polar bears, we have concluded that the Industry continues to reach out to the walrus and polar bear populations authorized taking of walruses and polar Native communities, development of inhabiting the Beaufort Sea area on the nears during the activities proposed by POCs, which must identify measures to North Slope coast of Alaska. Industry during this 5-year rule will not minimize any adverse effects, will be Our finding of negligible impact adversely impact the survival of these required. The POC will ensure that oil applies to incidental take associated species and will have no more than and gas activities will not have an with the petitioner’s oil and gas negligible effects. The Service is unmitigable adverse impact on the exploration, development, and currently involved in research to help availability of the species or stock for production activities as mitigated us understand how climate change may subsistence uses. This POC must through the regulatory process. The affect walruses and polar bears. As we provide the procedures addressing how regulations establish monitoring and gain a better understanding of climate Industry will work with the affected reporting requirements to evaluate the change effects, we will incorporate the Native communities and what actions potential impacts of authorized information in future actions. will be taken to avoid interference with activities, as well as mitigation Impacts on Subsistence Uses subsistence hunting of walruses and measures designed to minimize polar bears, as warranted. interactions with and impacts to Based on community consultations, The Service has not received any walruses and polar bears. We will locations of hunting areas, the potential reports and is aware of no information evaluate each request for an LOA based overlap of hunting areas and Industry that indicates that walruses or polar on the specific activity and the specific projects, the best scientific information bears are being or will be deflected from geographic location where the proposed available, and the results of monitoring hunting areas or impacted in any way activities are projected to occur to data, we find that take caused by oil and that diminishes their availability for ensure that the level of activity and gas exploration, development, and subsistence use by the expected level of potential take is consistent with our production activities in the Beaufort Sea oil and gas activity. If there is evidence finding of negligible impact. Depending and adjacent northern coast of Alaska during the 5-year period of the on the results of the evaluation, we may will not have an unmitigable adverse regulations that oil and gas activities are grant the authorization, add further impact on the availability of walruses affecting the availability of walruses or operating restrictions, or deny the and polar bears for taking for polar bears for take for subsistence uses, authorization. subsistence uses during the period of we will reevaluate our findings Within the described geographic the rule. In making this finding, we regarding permissible limits of take and region of this rule, Industry effects on considered the following: Records on the measures required to ensure walruses and polar bears are expected to subsistence harvest from the Service’s continued subsistence hunting occur at a level similar to what has Marking, Tagging, and Reporting opportunities. taken place under previous regulations. Program; community consultations; We anticipate that there will be an effectiveness of the POC process Monitoring and Reporting increased use of terrestrial habitat in the between Industry and affected Native The purpose of monitoring fall period by polar bears. We also communities; and anticipated 5-year requirements is to assess the effects of anticipate a continued increased use of effects of Industry activities on industrial activities on walruses and terrestrial habitat by denning bears. subsistence hunting. polar bears and to ensure that take is Nevertheless, we expect no significant Walruses and polar bears represent a consistent with that anticipated in the impact to these species as a result of small portion, in terms of the number of negligible impact and subsistence use these anticipated changes. The animals, of the total subsistence harvest analyses, and to detect any mitigation measures will be effective in for the communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, unanticipated effects on the species. minimizing any additional effects and Kaktovik. However, the low Monitoring plans document when and attributed to seasonal shifts in numbers do not mean that the harvest how bears and walruses are distribution or denning polar bears of these species is not important to encountered, the number of bears and during the 5-year timeframe of the Alaska Natives. Prior to receipt of an walruses, and their behavior during the regulations. It is likely that, due to LOA, Industry must provide evidence to encounter. This information allows the potential seasonal changes in us that community consultations have Service to measure encounter rates and abundance and distribution of polar occurred or that an adequate POC has trends of walrus and polar bear activity bears during the fall, more frequent been presented to the subsistence in the industrial areas (such as numbers

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36695

and gender, activity, seasonal use) and (b) Use the active voice to address seasonal timing limitations or to estimate numbers of animals readers directly; prohibitions, such as placing 1.6-km (1- potentially affected by Industry. (c) Use common, everyday words and mi) avoidance buffers around known or Monitoring plans are site-specific, clear language rather than jargon; observed dens (which halts or limits dependent on the proximity of the (d) Be divided into short sections and activity until the bear naturally leaves activity to important habitat areas, such sentences; and the den), building roads perpendicular as den sites, travel corridors, and food (e) Use lists and tables wherever to the coast to allow for polar bear sources; however, all activities are possible. movements along the coast, and required to report all sightings of If you feel that we have not met these monitoring the effects of the activities walruses and polar bears. To the extent requirements, send us comments by one on polar bears. Available denning possible, monitors will record group of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To habitat maps are provided by the USGS. size, age, sex, reaction, duration of better help us revise the rule, your National Environmental Policy Act interaction, and closest approach to comments should be as specific as (NEPA) Considerations Industry onshore. Activities within the possible. For example, you should tell geographic region may incorporate daily us the numbers of the sections or We have prepared a draft watch logs as well, which record 24- paragraphs that you find unclear, which environmental assessment (EA) in hour animal observations throughout sections or sentences are too long, the conjunction with this rulemaking. the duration of the project. Polar bear sections where you feel lists or tables Subsequent to the closure of the monitors will be incorporated into the would be useful, etc. comment period for this proposed rule, monitoring plan if bears are known to Public Participation we will decide whether this rulemaking frequent the area or known polar bear is a major Federal action significantly dens are present in the area. At offshore It is the policy of the Department of affecting the quality of the human Industry sites, systematic monitoring the Interior, whenever practicable, to environment within the meaning of protocols will be implemented to afford the public an opportunity to Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA of 1969. statistically monitor observation trends participate in the rulemaking process. For a copy of the EA, go to http:// of walruses or polar bears in the Accordingly, interested persons may www.regulations.gov and search for nearshore areas where they usually submit written comments regarding this Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2016–0060 or occur. proposed rule by one of the methods contact the individual identified above Monitoring activities will be listed in ADDRESSES. Before including in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. summarized and reported in a formal your address, phone number, email report each year. The applicant must address, or other personal identifying Endangered Species Act submit an annual monitoring and information in your comment, you In 2008, the Service listed the polar reporting plan at least 90 days prior to should be aware that your entire bear as a threatened species under the the initiation of a proposed activity, and comment—including your personal ESA (73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008) and the applicant must submit a final identifying information—may be made later designated critical habitat for polar monitoring report to us no later than 90 publicly available at any time. While bear populations in the United States, days after the expiration of the LOA. We you can ask us in your comment to effective January 6, 2011 (75 FR 76086, base each year’s monitoring objective on withhold your personal identifying December 7, 2010). Section 7(a)(1) and the previous year’s monitoring results. information from public review, we (2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1) and We require an approved plan for cannot guarantee that we will be able to (2)) directs the Service to review its monitoring and reporting the effects of do so. programs and to utilize such programs oil and gas Industry exploration, Required Determinations in the furtherance of the purposes of the development, and production activities ESA and to ensure that a proposed on polar bear and walruses prior to Treaty Obligations action is not likely to jeopardize the issuance of an LOA. Since production The ITRs are consistent with the 1973 continued existence of an ESA-listed activities are continuous and long-term, Agreement on the Conservation of Polar species or result in the destruction or upon approval, LOAs and their required Bears, a multilateral treaty executed in adverse modification of critical habitat. monitoring and reporting plans will be Oslo, Norway among the Governments In addition, the status of walruses issued for the life of the activity or until of Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, rangewide was reviewed for potential the expiration of the regulations, and the United States. Article II of this listing under the ESA. The listing of whichever occurs first. Each year, prior Polar Bear Agreement lists three walruses was found to be warranted, but to January 15, we require that the obligations of the Parties in protecting precluded due to higher priority listing operator submit development and polar bear habitat. Parties are obliged to: actions (i.e., walrus is a candidate production activity monitoring results (1) Take appropriate action to protect species) on February 10, 2011 (76 FR of the previous year’s activity. We the ecosystem of which polar bears are 7634). Consistent with these statutory require approval of the monitoring a part; (2) give special attention to requirements, the Service’s Marine results for continued operation under habitat components such as denning Mammal Management Office has the LOA. and feeding sites and migration initiated Intra-Service section 7 Public Comments patterns; and (3) manage polar bear consultation regarding the effects of populations in accordance with sound these regulations with the Service’s Clarity of This Rule conservation practices based on the best Fairbanks’ Ecological Services Field We are required by Executive Orders available scientific data. Office. Consistent with established 12866 and 12988 and by the This rule is also consistent with the agency policy, we will also conduct a Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Service’s treaty obligations because it conference regarding the effects of these 1998, to write all rules in plain incorporates mitigation measures that proposed regulations on the Pacific language. This means that each rule we ensure the protection of polar bear walrus. We will complete the publish must: habitat. LOAs for industrial activities consultation and conference prior to (a) Be logically organized; are conditioned to include area or finalizing these proposed regulations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36696 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Regulatory Planning and Review will accrue to Industry; royalties and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Executive Order 12866 provides that taxes will accrue to the Government; In accordance with the Unfunded the Office of Information and Regulatory and the proposed rule will have little or Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of no impact on decisions by Industry to seq.), this proposed rule will not Management and Budget will review all relinquish tracts and write off bonus ‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small significant rules. OIRA has determined payments. governments. A Small Government that this proposed rule is not significant. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Agency Plan is not required. The Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the Fairness Act Service has determined and certifies principles of E.O. 12866 while calling pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates for improvements in the nation’s We have determined that this Reform Act that this rulemaking will not regulatory system to promote proposed rule is not a major rule under impose a cost of $100 million or more predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business in any given year on local or State and to use the best, most innovative, Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. governments or private entities. This and least burdensome tools for The rule is also not likely to result in rule will not produce a Federal mandate achieving regulatory ends. The a major increase in costs or prices for of $100 million or greater in any year, executive order directs agencies to consumers, individual industries, or i.e., it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory consider regulatory approaches that government agencies or have significant action’’ under the Unfunded Mandates reduce burdens and maintain flexibility adverse effects on competition, Reform Act. and freedom of choice for the public employment, productivity, innovation, Government-to-Government where these approaches are relevant, or on the ability of United States-based feasible, and consistent with regulatory Relationship With Native American enterprises to compete with foreign- Tribal Governments objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes based enterprises in domestic or export further that regulations must be based markets. In accordance with the President’s on the best available science and that memorandum of April 29, 1994, the rulemaking process must allow for Regulatory Flexibility Act ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations public participation and an open with Native American Tribal exchange of ideas. We have developed We have also determined that this Governments’’ (59 FR 22951, May 4, this proposed rule in a manner proposed rule will not have a significant 1994), Executive Order 13175, consistent with these requirements. economic effect on a substantial number Department of the Interior Secretarial OIRA bases its determination upon of small entities under the Regulatory Order 3225 of January 19, 2001 the following four criteria: (a) Whether Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Oil (Endangered Species Act and the rule will have an annual effect of companies and their contractors Subsistence Uses in Alaska $100 million or more on the economy or conducting exploration, development, (Supplement to Secretarial Order 3206)), adversely affect an economic sector, and production activities in Alaska have Department of the Interior Secretarial productivity, jobs, the environment, or been identified as the only likely Order 3317 of December 1, 2011 (Tribal other units of the government; (b) applicants under the regulations, and Consultation and Policy), Department of Whether the rule will create these potential applicants have not been the Interior Memorandum of January 18, inconsistencies with other Federal identified as small businesses. 2001 (Alaska Government-to- agencies’ actions; (c) Whether the rule Therefore, neither a Regulatory Government Policy), the Department of will materially affect entitlements, Flexibility Analysis nor a Small Entity the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, and grants, user fees, loan programs, or the Compliance Guide is required. The the Native American Policy of the U.S. rights and obligations of their recipients; analysis for this rule is available from Fish and Wildlife Service, January 20, (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal the individual identified above in the 2016, we readily acknowledge our or policy issues. section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION responsibility to communicate and work Expenses will be related to, but not CONTACT. directly on a Government-to- necessarily limited to: The development Government basis with federally of applications for LOAs; monitoring, Takings Implications recognized Tribes in developing recordkeeping, and reporting activities This proposed rule does not have programs for healthy ecosystems, to conducted during Industry oil and gas takings implications under Executive seek their full and meaningful operations; development of polar bear Order 12630 because it authorizes the participation in evaluating and interaction plans; and coordination with addressing wildlife conservation nonlethal, incidental, but not Alaska Natives to minimize effects of concerns, to remain sensitive to Alaska intentional, take of walruses and polar operations on subsistence hunting. Native culture, and to make information bears by oil and gas Industry companies Compliance with the proposed rule is available to Alaska Natives. and, thereby, exempts these companies not expected to result in additional Furthermore, and in accordance with costs to Industry that it has not already from civil and criminal liability as long Department of the Interior Policy on borne under all previous ITRs. as they operate in compliance with the Consultation with Alaska Native Claims Realistically, these costs are minimal in terms of their LOAs. Therefore, a takings Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) comparison to those related to actual oil implications assessment is not required. Corporations, August 10, 2012, we and gas exploration, development, and Federalism Effects likewise acknowledge our responsibility production operations. The actual costs to communicate and work directly with to Industry to develop the petition for This rule does not contain policies ANCSA Corporations. promulgation of regulations and LOA with Federalism implications sufficient Through the LOA process identified requests probably do not exceed to warrant preparation of a Federalism in the proposed regulations, Industry $500,000 per year, short of the ‘‘major Assessment under Executive Order presents a communication process, rule’’ threshold that would require 13132. The MMPA gives the Service the culminating in a POC, if warranted, preparation of a regulatory impact authority and responsibility to protect with the Native communities most analysis. As is presently the case, profits walruses and polar bears. likely to be affected and engages these

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36697

communities in numerous informational the development and issuance of 18.121 Specified activities covered by this meetings. specific regulations and LOAs. subpart. In addition, to facilitate co- 18.122 Specified geographic region where management activities, the Service Energy Effects this subpart applies. maintains cooperative agreements with Executive Order 13211 requires 18.123 Dates this subpart is in effect. the EWC, the ANC, and the Qayassiq agencies to prepare Statements of 18.124 Procedure to obtain a Letter of Walrus Commission (QWC). The Energy Effects when undertaking certain Authorization (LOA). cooperative agreements fund a wide actions. This proposed rule provides 18.125 How the Service will evaluate a variety of management issues, exceptions from the taking prohibitions request for a Letter of Authorization including: Commission co-management of the MMPA for entities engaged in the (LOA). operations; biological sampling exploration of oil and gas in the 18.126 Authorized take allowed under a programs; harvest monitoring; collection Beaufort Sea and adjacent coast of Letter of Authorization (LOA) of Native knowledge in management; Alaska. By providing certainty regarding 18.127 Prohibited take under a Letter of international coordination on compliance with the MMPA, this Authorization (LOA). management issues; cooperative proposed rule will have a positive effect 18.128 Mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement of the MMPA; and on Industry and its activities. Although reporting requirements. development of local conservation the proposed rule requires Industry to 18.129 Information collection requirements. plans. To help realize mutual take a number of actions, these actions have been undertaken by Industry for § 18.121 Specified activities covered by management goals, the Service, EWC, this subpart. ANC, and QWC regularly hold meetings many years as part of similar past to discuss future expectations and regulations. Therefore, this proposd rule Regulations in this subpart apply to outline a shared vision of co- is not expected to significantly affect the nonlethal incidental, but not management. energy supplies, distribution, or use and intentional, take of small numbers of The Service also has ongoing does not constitute a significant energy polar bear and Pacific walrus by U.S. cooperative relationships with the NSB action. No Statement of Energy Effects is citizens (as defined in § 18.27(c)) while and the Inupiat-Inuvialuit Game required. engaged in oil and gas exploration, Commission where we work References development, production, and/or other cooperatively to ensure that data substantially similar activities in the collected from harvest and research are For a list of the references cited in this Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern used to ensure that polar bears are proposed rule, see Docket No. FWS–R7– coast of Alaska. available for harvest in the future; ES–2016–0060, available at http:// provide information to co-management www.regulations.gov. § 18.122 Specified geographic region partners that allows them to evaluate List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18 where this subpart applies. harvest relative to their management agreements and objectives; and provide Administrative practice and This subpart applies to the specified information that allows evaluation of procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians, geographic region that encompasses all the status, trends, and health of polar Marine mammals, Oil and gas Beaufort Sea waters east of a north- bear populations. exploration, Reporting and south line through Point Barrow, Alaska recordkeeping requirements, (71°23′29″ N., ¥156 °28′30″ W., BGN Civil Justice Reform Transportation. 1944), and approximately 322 ∼ The Departmental Solicitor’s Office Proposed Regulation Promulgation kilometers (km) ( 200 miles (mi)) north has determined that these proposed of Point Barrow, including all Alaska For the reasons set forth in the regulations do not unduly burden the State waters and Outer Continental preamble, the Service proposes to judicial system and meet the applicable Shelf (OCS) waters, and east of that line amend part 18, subchapter B of chapter standards provided in Sections 3(a) and to the Canadian border. 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below. (a) The offshore boundary of the Paperwork Reduction Act Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations This proposed rule contains PART 18—MARINE MAMMALS (ITR) region will match the boundary of information collection requirements. We the Bureau of Ocean Energy ■ 1. The authority citation of 50 CFR may not conduct or sponsor and a part 18 continues to read as follows: Management (BOEM) Beaufort Sea person is not required to respond to a Planning area, approximately 322 km collection of information unless it Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. (∼200 mi) offshore. The onshore region displays a currently valid Office of ■ is the same north/south line at Barrow, Management and Budget (OMB) control 2. Amend part 18 by revising subpart J to read as follows: 40.2 km (25 mi) inland and east to the number. OMB has reviewed and Canning River. approved the information collection Subpart J—Nonlethal Taking of Marine (b) The Arctic National Wildlife requirements included in this rule and Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas assigned OMB control number 1018– Refuge is not included in the Beaufort Exploration, Development, Production Sea ITR region. Figure 1 shows the area 0070, which expires March 31, 2017. and Other Substantially Similar where this subpart applies. This control number covers the Activities in the Beaufort Sea and information collection, recordkeeping, Adjacent Northern Coast of Alaska and reporting requirements in 50 CFR 18, subpart J, which are associated with Sec.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36698 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

§ 18.123 Dates this subpart is in effect. (c) The request for an LOA must hunting, where relevant. Applicants Regulations in this subpart are include the following information and must provide documentation of effective from August 3, 2016, through must comply with the requirements set communication with potentially August 3, 2021, for year-round oil and forth in § 18.128: affected subsistence communities along gas exploration, development, (1) A plan of operations that describes the Beaufort Sea coast (i.e., Kaktovik, production and other substantially in detail the proposed activity (e.g., type Nuiqsut, and Barrow) and appropriate similar activities. of project, methods, and types and subsistence user organizations (i.e., the numbers of equipment and personnel, Eskimo Walrus Commission and the § 18.124 Procedure to obtain a Letter of etc.), the dates and duration of the Authorization (LOA). Alaska Nanuuq Commission) to discuss activity, and the specific locations of the location, timing, and methods of (a) An applicant must be a U.S. and areas affected by the activity. citizen as defined in § 18.27(c). (2) A site-specific marine mammal proposed activities and identify and (b) If an applicant proposes to monitoring and mitigation plan to mitigate any potential conflicts with conduct oil and gas industry monitor and mitigate the effects of the subsistence walrus and polar bear exploration, development, production, activity on Pacific walruses and polar hunting activities. Applicants must and/or other substantially similar bears. specifically inquire of relevant activity in the Beaufort Sea ITR region (3) A site-specific Pacific walrus and communities and organizations if the described in § 18.122 that may cause the polar bear safety, awareness, and proposed activity will interfere with the taking of Pacific walruses and/or polar interaction plan. The plan for each availability of Pacific walruses and/or bears and wants nonlethal incidental activity and location will detail the polar bears for the subsistence use of take authorization under the regulations policies and procedures that will those groups. Applications for Letters of in this subpart J, the applicant must provide for the safety and awareness of Authorization must include apply for an LOA. The applicant must personnel, avoid interactions with documentation of all consultations with submit the request for authorization to Pacific walruses and polar bears, and potentially affected user groups. the Service’s Alaska Region Marine minimize impacts to these animals. Documentation must include a Mammals Management Office (see § 2.2 (4) A Plan of Cooperation (POC) to summary of any concerns identified by for address) at least 90 days prior to the mitigate potential conflicts between the community members and hunter start of the proposed activity. proposed activity and subsistence

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP07JN16.000 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36699

organizations, and the applicant’s § 18.128 Mitigation, monitoring, and (b) Mitigation measures for onshore responses to identified concerns. reporting requirements. activities. Holders of an LOA must (a) Mitigation measures for all Letters undertake the following activities to § 18.125 How the Service will evaluate a limit disturbance around known polar request for a Letter of Authorization (LOA). of Authorization (LOAs). Holders of an LOA must implement policies and bear dens: (a) We will evaluate each request for procedures to conduct activities in a (1) Attempt to locate polar bear dens. an LOA based on the specific activity manner that minimizes to the greatest Holders of an LOA seeking to carry out and the specific geographic location. We extent practicable adverse impacts on onshore activities in known or will determine whether the level of Pacific walruses and/or polar bears, suspected polar bear denning habitat activity identified in the request exceeds their habitat, and the availability of during the denning season (November– that analyzed by us in considering the these marine mammals for subsistence April) must make efforts to locate number of animals likely to be taken uses. Adaptive management practices, occupied polar bear dens within and and evaluating whether there will be a such as temporal or spatial activity near proposed areas of operation, negligible impact on the species or an restrictions in response to the presence utilizing appropriate tools, such as adverse impact on the availability of the of marine mammals in a particular place forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imagery species for subsistence uses. If the level or time or the occurrence of Pacific and/or polar bear scent-trained dogs. All of activity is greater, we will reevaluate walruses and/or polar bears engaged in observed or suspected polar bear dens our findings to determine if those must be reported to the Service prior to findings continue to be appropriate a biologically significant activity (e.g., resting, feeding, denning, or nursing, the initiation of activities. based on the greater level of activity that (2) Observe the exclusion zone around the applicant has requested. Depending among others) must be used to avoid interactions with and minimize impacts known polar bear dens. Operators must on the results of the evaluation, we may observe a 1.6-km (1-mi) operational grant the authorization, add further to these animals and their availability for subsistence uses. exclusion zone around all known polar conditions, or deny the authorization. bear dens during the denning season (b) In accordance with § 18.27(f)(5), (1) All holders of an LOA must: (i) Cooperate with the Service’s (November–April, or until the female we will make decisions concerning and cubs leave the areas). Should withdrawals of an LOA, either on an Marine Mammals Management Office and other designated Federal, State, and previously unknown occupied dens be individual or class basis, only after discovered within 1 mi of activities, notice and opportunity for public local agencies to monitor and mitigate the impacts of oil and gas industry work must cease and the Service comment. contacted for guidance. The Service will (c) The requirement for notice and activities on Pacific walruses and polar bears. evaluate these instances on a case-by- public comment in paragraph (b) of this case basis to determine the appropriate section will not apply should we (ii) Designate trained and qualified personnel to monitor for the presence of action. Potential actions may range from determine that an emergency exists that cessation or modification of work to poses a significant risk to the well-being Pacific walruses and polar bears, initiate mitigation measures, and monitor, conducting additional monitoring, and of the species or stocks of polar bears or the holder of the authorization must Pacific walruses. record, and report the effects of oil and gas industry activities on Pacific comply with any additional measures § 18.126 Authorized take allowed under a walruses and/or polar bears. specified. (3) Use the den habitat map Letter of Authorization (LOA). (iii) Have an approved Pacific walrus developed by the USGS. A map of (a) An LOA allows for the nonlethal, and polar bear safety, awareness, and potential coastal polar bear denning noninjurious, incidental, but not interaction plan on file with the habitat can be found at: http:// intentional take by Level B harassment, Service’s Marine Mammals Management alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/polar_ as defined in § 18.3 and under § 3 of the Office and onsite, and provide polar bears/denning.html. This measure Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 bear awareness training to certain ensures that the location of potential U.S.C. 1371 et seq.), of Pacific walruses personnel. Interaction plans must polar bear dens is considered when and/or polar bears while conducting oil include: conducting activities in the coastal areas and gas industry exploration, (A) The type of activity and where development, production, and/or other of the Beaufort Sea. and when the activity will occur (i.e., a (4) Restrict the timing of the activity substantially similar activities within summary of the plan of operation); the Beaufort Sea ITR region described in to limit disturbance around dens. (B) A food, waste, and other ‘‘bear (c) Mitigation measures for § 18.122. attractants’’ management plan; (b) Each LOA will identify terms and operational and support vessels. (C) Personnel training policies, (1) Operational and support vessels conditions for each proposed activity procedures, and materials; and location. must be staffed with dedicated marine (D) Site-specific walrus and polar bear mammal observers to alert crew of the § 18.127 Prohibited take under a Letter of interaction risk evaluation and presence of walruses and polar bears Authorization (LOA). mitigation measures; and initiate adaptive mitigation Except as otherwise provided in this (E) Walrus and polar bear avoidance responses. subpart, prohibited taking is described and encounter procedures; and (2) At all times, vessels must maintain in § 18.11 as well as: (F) Walrus and polar bear observation the maximum distance possible from (a) Intentional take, Level A and reporting procedures. concentrations of walruses or polar harassment, as defined in § 3 of the (2) All applicants for an LOA must bears. Under no circumstances, other Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 contact affected subsistence than an emergency, should any vessel U.S.C. 1371 et seq.), and lethal communities and hunter organizations approach within an 805-m (0.5-mi) incidental take of polar bears or Pacific to discuss potential conflicts caused by radius of walruses or polar bears walruses; and the proposed activities and provide the observed on land or ice. (b) Any take that fails to comply with Service documentation of (3) Vessel operators must take every this subpart or with the terms and communications as described in precaution to avoid harassment of conditions of an LOA. § 18.124. concentrations of feeding walruses

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 36700 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

when a vessel is operating near these anticipated walrus or polar bear hunting bear), the operator must immediately animals. Vessels should reduce speed activity as determined through shut down the sound source. and maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5- community consultations. (B) If observations are made or mi) operational exclusion zone around (e) Mitigation measures for sound- credible reports are received that one or feeding walrus groups. Vessels may not producing offshore activities. Any more walruses or polar bears within the be operated in such a way as to separate offshore activity expected to produce area of the sound source activity are members of a group of walruses from pulsed underwater sounds with believed to be in an injured or mortal other members of the group. When received sound levels ≥160 dB re 1 mPa state, or are indicating acute distress weather conditions require, such as will be required to establish and due to received sound, the sound source when visibility drops, vessels should monitor acoustically verified mitigation must be immediately shut down and the adjust speed accordingly to avoid the zones surrounding the sound source and Service contacted. The sound source likelihood of injury to walruses. implement adaptive mitigation will not be restarted until review and (4) The transit of operational and measures as follows: approval has been given by the Service. support vessels through the specified (1) Mitigation zones. The ramp-up procedures must be geographic region is not authorized (i) A walrus monitoring zone is followed when restarting. prior to July 1. This operating condition required where the received pulsed (f) Mitigation measures for the ≥ is intended to allow walruses the sound level would be 160 dB re 1 mPa. subsistence use of walruses and polar opportunity to disperse from the Walruses in this zone are assumed to bears. Holders of Letters of confines of the spring lead system and experience Level B take. Authorization must conduct their minimize interactions with subsistence (ii) A walrus mitigation zone is activities in a manner that, to the walrus hunters. Exemption waivers to required where the received pulsed greatest extent practicable, minimizes ≥ this operating condition may be issued sound level would be 180 dB re 1 mPa. adverse impacts on the availability of by the Service on a case-by-case basis, (iii) A walrus or polar bear mitigation Pacific walruses and polar bears for based upon a review of seasonal ice zone is required where the received ≥ subsistence uses. conditions and available information on pulsed sound level would be 190 dB re (1) Community consultation. Prior to walrus and polar bear distributions in 1 mPa. receipt of an LOA, applicants must the area of interest. (2) Adaptive mitigation measures. consult with potentially affected (5) All vessels must avoid areas of (i) Ramp-up procedures. For all sound communities and appropriate active or anticipated walrus or polar sources, including sound source testing, subsistence user organizations to bear subsistence hunting activity as the following sound ramp-up discuss potential conflicts with determined through community procedures must be used to allow subsistence walrus and polar bear consultations. walruses and polar bears to depart the hunting caused by the location, timing, (6) In association with marine mitigation zones: and methods of proposed operations activities, we may require trained (A) Visually monitor the ≥180 dB re and support activities (see § 18.124 for marine mammal monitors on the site of 1 mPa and ≥190 dB re 1 mPa mitigation details). If community concerns suggest the activity or on board drill ships, drill zones and adjacent waters for walruses that the proposed activities may have an rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other and polar bears for at least 30 minutes adverse impact on the subsistence uses support vessels or vehicles to monitor before initiating ramp-up procedures. If of these species, the applicant must the impacts of Industry’s activity on no walruses or polar bears are detected, address conflict avoidance issues polar bear and Pacific walruses. ramp-up procedures may begin. Do not through a POC as described in (d) Mitigation measures for aircraft. initiate ramp-up procedures when paragraph (f)(2) of this section. (1) Operators of support aircraft mitigation zones are not observable (e.g., should, at all times, conduct their at night, in fog, during storms or high (2) Plan of Cooperation (POC). When activities at the maximum distance sea states, etc.). appropriate, a holder of an LOA will be possible from concentrations of (B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by required to develop and implement a walruses or polar bears. activating a single, or least powerful, Service-approved POC. The POC must (2) Under no circumstances, other sound source, in terms of energy output include: than an emergency, should aircraft and/or volume capacity. (i) A description of the procedures by operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (C) Continue ramp-up by gradually which the holder of the LOA will work (1,500 ft) within 805 m (0.5 mi) of increasing sound output over a period of and consult with potentially affected walruses or polar bears observed on ice at least 20 minutes, but no longer than subsistence hunters; and or land. Helicopters may not hover or 40 minutes, until the desired operating (ii) A description of specific measures circle above such areas or within 805 m level of the sound source is obtained. that have been or will be taken to avoid (0.5 mile) of such areas. When weather (ii) Power down. Immediately power or minimize interference with conditions do not allow a 457-m (1,500- down a sound source when: subsistence hunting of walruses and ft) flying altitude, such as during severe (A) One or more walruses is observed polar bears and to ensure continued storms or when cloud cover is low, or detected within the area delineated availability of the species for aircraft may be operated below this by the pulsed sound ≥180 dB re 1 mPa subsistence use. altitude. However, when weather walrus mitigation zone; and (iii) The Service will review the POC conditions necessitate operation of (B) One or more walruses or polar to ensure that any potential adverse aircraft at altitudes below 457 m (1,500 bears are observed or detected within effects on the availability of the animals ft), the operator must avoid areas of the area delineated by the pulsed sound are minimized. The Service will reject known walrus and polar bear ≥190 dB re 1 mPa walrus or polar bear POCs if they do not provide adequate concentrations and should take mitigation zone. safeguards to ensure the least precautions to avoid flying directly over (iii) Shut down. practicable adverse impact on the or within 805 m (0.5 mile) of these (A) If the power down operation availability of walruses and polar bears areas. cannot reduce the received pulsed for subsistence use. (3) Plan all aircraft routes to minimize sound level to <180 dB re 1 mPa (walrus) (g) Monitoring requirements. Holders any potential conflict with active or or <190 dB re 1 mPa (walrus or polar of an LOA will be required to:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36701

(1) Develop and implement a site- (A) Date, time, and location of each submitted to the Service for review specific, Service-approved marine walrus sighting; within 90 days of the expiration of an mammal monitoring and mitigation (B) Number of walruses; LOA, or for production LOAs, an annual plan to monitor and evaluate the (C) Sex and age (if known); report by January 15th of each calendar effectiveness of mitigation measures and (D) Observer name and contact year. Upon request, final report data the effects of activities on walruses, information; must be provided in a common polar bears, and the subsistence use of (E) Weather, visibility, sea state, and electronic format (to be specified by the these species. sea-ice conditions at the time of Service). Information in the final (or (2) Provide trained, qualified, and observation; annual) report must include, but is not Service-approved onsite observers to (F) Estimated range at closest limited to: carry out monitoring and mitigation approach; (i) Copies of all observation reports activities identified in the marine (G) Industry activity at time of submitted under the LOA; mammal monitoring and mitigation sighting; (ii) A summary of the observation plan. (H) Behavior of animals sighted; reports; (I) Description of the encounter; (3) For offshore activities, provide (iii) A summary of monitoring and (J) Duration of the encounter; and trained, qualified, and Service-approved mitigation efforts including areas, total (K) Mitigation actions taken. observers on board all operational and hours, total distances, and distribution; support vessels to carry out monitoring (iii) Polar bear observation reports. (iv) Analysis of factors affecting the and mitigation activities identified in Holders of an LOA must report, within visibility and detectability of walruses the marine mammal monitoring and 48 hours, all observations of polar bears and polar bears during monitoring; mitigation plan. Offshore observers may and potential polar bear dens, during be required to complete a marine any Industry activity. Upon request, (v) Analysis of the effectiveness of mammal observer training course monitoring report data must be mitigation measures; approved by the Service. provided in a common electronic format (vi) Analysis of the distribution, (4) Cooperate with the Service and (to be specified by the Service). abundance, and behavior of walruses other designated Federal, State, and Information in the observation report and/or polar bears observed; and local agencies to monitor the impacts of must include, but is not limited to: (vii) Estimates of take in relation to oil and gas activities on walruses and (A) Date, time, and location of the specified activities. polar bears. Where information is observation; (B) Number of bears; § 18.129 Information collection insufficient to evaluate the potential requirements. effects of proposed activities on (C) Sex and age (if known); walruses, polar bears, and the (D) Observer name and contact (a) We may not conduct or sponsor subsistence use of these species, holders information; and a person is not required to respond of an LOA may be required to (E) Weather, visibility, sea state, and to a collection of information unless it participate in joint monitoring and/or sea-ice conditions at the time of displays a currently valid Office of research efforts to address these observation; Management and Budget (OMB) control information needs and ensure the least (F) Estimated closest distance of bears number. OMB has approved the practicable impact to these resources. from personnel and facilities; collection of information contained in (h) Reporting requirements. Holders of (G) Industry activity at time of this subpart and assigned OMB control an LOA must report the results of sighting; number 1018–0070. You must respond monitoring and mitigation activities to (H) Possible attractants present; to this information collection request to the Service’s Marine Mammals (I) Bear behavior; obtain a benefit pursuant to section Management Office via email at: fw7_ (J) Description of the encounter; 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal [email protected]. (K) Duration of the encounter; and Protection Act. We will use the (1) In-season monitoring reports. (L) Mitigation actions taken. information to: (i) Activity progress reports. Holders (2) Notification of LOA incident (1) Evaluate the application and of an LOA must: report. Holders of an LOA must report, determine whether or not to issue (A) Notify the Service at least 48 as soon as possible, but within 48 hours, specific Letters of Authorization; and hours prior to the onset of activities; all LOA incidents during any Industry (2) Monitor impacts of activities and (B) Provide the Service weekly activity. An LOA incident is any effectiveness of mitigation measures progress reports of any significant situation when specified activities conducted under the Letters of changes in activities and/or locations; exceed the authority of an LOA, when Authorization. and a mitigation measure was required but (b) Comments regarding the burden (C) Notify the Service within 48 hours not enacted, or when injury or death of estimate or any other aspect of this after ending of activities. a walrus or polar bear occurs. Reports requirement must be submitted to the (ii) Walrus observation reports. must include: Information Collection Clearance Holders of an LOA must report, on a (i) All information specified for an Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, weekly basis, all observations of observation report; at the address listed in 50 CFR 2.2. walruses during any Industry activity. (ii) A complete detailed description of Upon request, monitoring report data the incident; and Dated: May 26, 2016. must be provided in a common (iii) Any other actions taken. Michael J. Bean, electronic format (to be specified by the (3) Final report. The results of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish Service). Information in the observation monitoring and mitigation efforts and Wildlife and Parks. report must include, but is not limited identified in the marine mammal [FR Doc. 2016–13124 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am] to: monitoring and mitigation plan must be BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\07JNP2.SGM 07JNP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS