Proposed Rule2026-04558
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears and Pacific Walruses in the Beaufort Sea and North Slope of Alaska
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 9, 2026
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, received a request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association to issue regulations facilitating the authorization of incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) during year-round oil and gas industry activities in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf) and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. Take may result from oil and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation activities occurring for a period of 5 years. Oil and gas industry operations include similar types of activities covered by the previous 5-year Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations effective from August 5, 2021, through August 5, 2026. If this rule is finalized, we may issue letters of authorization, upon request, for specific proposed activities in accordance with this proposed regulation. We are proposing that this rule, if finalized, will be for 5 years. We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or suggestions on these proposed regulations and the accompanying draft environmental assessment from the public, Tribes, and local, State, and Federal agencies.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 45 (Monday, March 9, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11240-11266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-04558]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694; FXES111607MRG01-267-FF07CAMM00]
RIN 1018-BI93
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears and Pacific
Walruses in the Beaufort Sea and North Slope of Alaska
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability of draft environmental
assessment; and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, received a request
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 from the Alaska Oil and
Gas Association to issue regulations facilitating the authorization of
incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears (Ursus
maritimus) and Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) during
year-round oil and gas industry activities in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska
and the Outer Continental Shelf) and adjacent northern coast of Alaska.
Take may result from oil and gas exploration, development, production,
and transportation activities occurring for a period of 5 years. Oil
and gas industry operations include similar types of activities covered
by the previous 5-year Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations
effective from August 5, 2021, through August 5, 2026. If this rule is
finalized, we may issue letters of authorization, upon request, for
specific proposed activities in accordance with this proposed
regulation. We are proposing that this rule, if finalized, will be for
5 years. We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed
rule will be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we
request comments or suggestions on these proposed regulations and the
accompanying draft environmental assessment from the public, Tribes,
and local, State, and Federal agencies.
DATES: Comments will be accepted on or before April 8, 2026. Comments
submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the
closing date.
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit
it using one of the methods identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this
document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be
considered.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: You may view this proposed rule, the
associated draft environmental assessment, comments received, and other
supporting material (including Supporting & Related Materials) at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694, or
these documents may be requested as described under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment submission: All submissions must include the docket number
FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694 this document. You must submit comments using one
of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic submission: Federal eRulemaking Portal at:
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R7-ES-2026-
0694, which is the docket number for this action. Then click the Search
button. On the resulting page, you may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.'' Please ensure that you have found the correct document
before submitting your comments.
<bullet> U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694, Policy and Regulations Branch, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church,
VA 22041-3803.
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this
document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be
considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand
delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted
after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method
outside of these instructions.
Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other
inappropriate content will not be considered.
We will post all comments at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. You may
request that we withhold personal identifying information from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. See
Request for Public Comments, below, for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Burgess, by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#384a0f5555554a5d5f4d54594c574a41785e4f4b165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1765207a7a7a657270627b766378656e5771606439707861">[email protected]</span></a>, by telephone at 907-786-3800, or by U.S. mail
at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 341, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
[[Page 11241]]
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA;
16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) and its implementing regulations, we, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter ``FWS'' or we), propose incidental
take regulations (ITRs) that, if finalized, would facilitate the
authorization of the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of
polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus
divergens) during oil and gas exploration, development, production, and
transportation activities in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska and the Outer
Continental Shelf) and adjacent northern coast of Alaska, not including
lands within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). If finalized,
this proposed rule would be effective for a 5-year period.
This proposed rule is based on our preliminary findings that the
total takings of polar bears and Pacific walruses during specified
activities will impact small numbers of animals, will have a negligible
impact on the species or stocks, and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of these species or stocks for
subsistence use by Alaska Natives. We base our draft findings on data
from monitoring the encounters and interactions between these species
and the oil and gas industry; research on these species; oil spill risk
assessments; potential and documented effects on these species from
similar activities; information regarding the natural history and
conservation status of polar bears and Pacific walruses; and data
reported from Alaska Native subsistence hunters. In conjunction with
this proposed rulemaking, the FWS has prepared a draft environmental
assessment, which is also available for public review and comment.
These proposed regulations set forth permissible methods of taking;
mitigation measures to ensure that Alaska Oil and Gas Association's
(AOGA) activities will have the least practicable adverse impact on
these species or stocks, their habitat, and the availability of these
species for subsistence uses; and requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA gives the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) the authority to allow the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, in response to
requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 18 (at 50 CFR 18.27(c)) engaged in a
specified activity, other than commercial fishing, within a specified
geographic region. The Secretary has delegated authority for
implementation of the MMPA to the FWS. According to the MMPA, the FWS
shall allow this incidental taking for a period of up to 5 consecutive
years if we find that the total of such taking:
(1) will affect only small numbers of individuals of the species or
stock;
(2) will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or
stock;
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use by Alaska
Natives; and
(4) we issue regulations that set forth:
(a) permissible methods of taking,
(b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or
stock for subsistence uses, and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking.
If final regulations allowing such incidental take are issued, we
may then subsequently issue letters of authorization (LOAs), upon
request, to authorize incidental take during the specified activities.
The term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Harassment
for activities other than military readiness activities or scientific
research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government means
``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential
to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild'' (the
MMPA defines this as ``Level A harassment''), or ``(ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering'' (the MMPA defines this as ``Level B harassment'').
The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact''
are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small takes of
marine mammals incidental to specified activities) as follows:
``Negligible impact'' is an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. ``Unmitigable adverse impact''
means an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) that is
likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly
displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27.
However, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates ``small
numbers'' with ``negligible impact.'' We recognize ``small numbers''
and ``negligible impact'' as two separate and distinct requirements for
promulgating ITRs under the MMPA (see Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.
v. Evans, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2002)). Instead, for
our small numbers determination, we evaluate if the number of marine
mammals estimated to be incidentally taken is small relative to the
size of the species or stock.
The term ``least practicable adverse impact'' is not defined in the
MMPA or its implementing regulations. In promulgating ITRs, we ensure
the least practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures
that are effective in reducing the impact of specified activities, but
not so restrictive as to make specified activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete.
In this proposed rule, the term ``Industry'' includes individuals,
companies, and organizations involved in exploration, development,
production, and transportation activities of the petroleum industry.
Industry activities may result in the incidental taking of Southern
Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears and Pacific walruses (hereafter
``walruses''). The MMPA does not require any party to obtain an
incidental take authorization; however, any incidental taking that
occurs without authorization is a violation of the MMPA. Since 1993,
the oil and gas industry operating in the Beaufort Sea and the adjacent
northern coast of Alaska has requested and we have issued ITRs for the
incidental take of polar bears and walruses within a specified
geographic region during
[[Page 11242]]
specified activities. For a detailed history of our current and past
Beaufort Sea ITRs, refer to the Federal Register at 90 FR 27398, June
26, 2025; 86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021; 81 FR 52276, August 5, 2016; 76
FR 47010, August 3, 2011; 71 FR 43926, August 2, 2006; and 68 FR 66744,
November 28, 2003. The current ITRs are codified at 50 CFR part 18,
subpart J (Sec. Sec. 18.121 to 18.129).
Summary of Request
On September 30, 2025, the FWS received a request from AOGA on
behalf of its members and other participating companies to promulgate
regulations for incidental take of small numbers of polar bears and
walruses during oil and gas exploration, development, production, and
transportation activities in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern
coast of Alaska for a period of 5 years (2026-2031) (hereafter referred
to as the ``Request''). The FWS deemed AOGA's Request as adequate and
complete on January 12, 2026.
The AOGA requests regulations that will be applicable to the oil
and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation
activities of multiple companies specified in the Request. This
includes AOGA member and non-member companies that have applied for
these regulations. The companies of AOGA represented in the Request (as
modified via subsequent communication from AOGA concerning membership
changes) include: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; BlueCrest Energy,
Inc.; Chevron Corporation; ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI);
ExxonMobil Alaska Production, Inc. (ExxonMobil); Finnex; Furie
Operating Alaska, LLC; Glacier Oil and Gas Corporation (Glacier);
Hilcorp Alaska, LLC and Hilcorp North Slope, LLC (Hilcorp); Marathon
Petroleum Corporation; Petro Star, Inc.; Repsol; Santos; Shell
Exploration and Production Company (Shell); APA Corporation; and 8 Star
Alaska, LLC (a non-member company). If the proposed rule is finalized
in its current form, these regulations would apply only to the member
companies and the non-member company represented in the Request, their
corporate affiliates, respective contractors, subcontractors, partners,
owners, co-lessees, designees, or successors-in-interest that plan to
conduct oil and gas operations in the specified geographic region.
AOGA also informed FWS that further membership changes may occur
during the ITR period and requested that eligibility for incidental
take authorization pursuant to the final ITR, if issued, be conditioned
upon active AOGA membership. The FWS requests public comments on the
degree of flexibility to be afforded by a final rule and, relatedly,
the eligibility criteria to be applied during the LOA request and
review process.
The activities within the scope of the Request are consistent with
the nature of oil and gas activities that have occurred on the Alaska
North Slope for decades. Those activities have occurred in parallel
with monitoring and reporting that has provided a record of polar bear
interactions in connection with such activities. AOGA has indicated
that not all activities described in the Request will actually occur
during the ITR period, noting the broad scope of activities in the
Request was included to support a comprehensive analysis and account
for variability.
Description of the Proposed Regulations
These proposed regulations, if finalized, would facilitate the
authorization of the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of
polar bears and walruses that may result from the specified activities.
They would not authorize or ``permit'' the specified activities
themselves. The proposed regulations include:
(1) permissible methods of taking;
(2) measures designed to ensure the least practicable adverse
impact on polar bears and walruses, their habitat, and on the
availability of these species or stocks for subsistence uses; and
(3) requirements for monitoring and reporting.
These proposed regulations, if finalized in their current form,
would differ from prior iterations of the Beaufort Sea ITR in terms of
the types of incidental take that would be allowed. Past iterations of
the Beaufort ITR have been consistent in expressly prohibiting
incidental lethal take but inconsistent in terms of allowable types of
incidental harassment. See 76 FR 47010, August 3, 2011 (allowing all
nonlethal incidental take); 81 FR 52276, August 5, 2016 (allowing
incidental Level B harassment but not incidental Level A harassment);
86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021 (allowing incidental Level B harassment but
not incidental Level A harassment); and 90 FR 27398, June 6, 2025
(allowing incidental Level B harassment and incidental Level A
harassment). Some of these inconsistencies reflect differences in the
types of incidental harassment that FWS anticipated to result from each
set of specified activities. For instance, the FWS did not anticipate
or authorize incidental Level A harassment in the original 2021-2026
regulations (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021) but did anticipate and thus
allowed Level A harassment in the revised 2021-2026 regulations (90 FR
27398, June 6, 2025). However, Level A harassment was not anticipated
but was nevertheless allowed (at least implicitly) in the 2006-2011
regulations (71 FR 43926, August 2, 2006).
The FWS is now considering whether the best reading of the MMPA's
provisions concerning ITRs requires the FWS to allow (1) all types of
incidental take that result from the specified activities; (2) only the
types of incidental take that FWS anticipated during the rulemaking
process; or (3) only the types of incidental take that were requested
to be allowed. While this proposed rule reflects the first of these
interpretations, FWS requests public comment on this issue and notes
that a final rule may adopt a different approach responsive to public
comment.
Description of Letters of Authorization (LOAs)
An LOA is required to conduct activities pursuant to ITRs. Under
this proposed ITR, if finalized, eligible parties may request LOAs that
would authorize incidental take of polar bears and walruses resulting
from the specified activities described in the ITR. Eligible parties
are the member and non-member companies specified in AOGA's Request,
and their corporate affiliates, respective contractors, subcontractors,
partners, owners, co-lessees, designees, or successors-in-interest.
Requests for LOAs must be consistent with the activity descriptions and
mitigation and monitoring requirements of the ITR and be received in
writing at least 90 days before the activity is to begin. Requests must
include (1) an operational plan for the activity, including the timing
of work and the nature of work to be conducted; (2) an interaction plan
for polar bears and walruses; (3) a site-specific marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plan that specifies the procedures to monitor
and mitigate the effects of the activities on polar bears and walruses,
including frequency and dates of aerial infrared (AIR) surveys when
such surveys are required; and (4) plans of cooperation (if required as
described in Mitigation Measures, below). Once this information has
been received, we will evaluate whether the level of activity
identified in the request exceeds that analyzed by us in considering
the findings made for the total taking allowable under the ITRs. If the
level of activity exceeds that analyzed, the Service may request
additional information. For more
[[Page 11243]]
information on requesting and receiving an LOA, refer to 50 CFR
18.27(f).
Description of Specified Geographic Region and Specified Activities
The specified geographic region covered by the requested ITR
(Beaufort Sea ITR region, see figure 1, below) encompasses all Beaufort
Sea waters (including State waters and Outer Continental Shelf waters
as defined by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) east of a north-
south line extending from Point Barrow (latitude 71.39139[deg] N,
longitude 156.475[deg] W; Board on Geographic Names (BGN)1944) to the
Canadian border, except for marine waters located within the ANWR. The
offshore boundary extends 80.5 kilometers (km) (50 miles (mi))
offshore. The onshore boundary includes land on the North Slope of
Alaska from Point Barrow to the western boundary of ANWR. The onshore
boundary is 40 km (25 mi) inland. No lands or waters within the
exterior boundaries of ANWR are included in the Beaufort Sea ITR
region. The geographical extent of the proposed Beaufort Sea ITR region
(approximately 7.9 million hectares (ha) (approximately 19.8 million
acres (ac))) is the same region covered in previous regulations set
forth in the final rule that published at 86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021;
revised 90 FR 27398, June 26, 2025. The specified geographic region
includes but is not limited to the following oil and gas development
areas on the North Slope of Alaska: Nikaitchuq, Oooguruk, Badami,
Northstar, Endicott (Duck Island), Liberty, Milne Point, Point Thomson,
Prudhoe Bay, Pikka, Quokka, Southern Miluveach, Kuparuk River, Greater
Mooses Tooth, Colville River, Horseshoe, and Bear Tooth.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR26.003
Figure 1--Specific geographic region of the requested incidental take
regulations.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
The specified activities include oil and gas exploration,
development, production, and transportation activities within the
specified geographic region. This section summarizes the type and scale
of Industry activities anticipated to occur in the Beaufort Sea ITR
region from 2026 to 2031. Year-round onshore and offshore Industry
activities are anticipated. During the 5-year ITR period, Industry
activities are expected to be generally similar in type, timing, and
effect to activities evaluated under the prior ITRs. Additional
information is available in the AOGA Request for an ITR at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694.
Transportation and Staging
Transportation activities will include aircraft operations; vehicle
and equipment operations on gravel roads, gravel pads, ice roads, and
ice pads;
[[Page 11244]]
vehicle operations on tundra; and vessel transit and barging
operations.
Aircraft operations will consist of personnel and cargo transport
flights to support operations, aerial pipeline inspections, and
environmental monitoring surveys. Personnel and cargo flights will be
conducted routinely throughout the Beaufort Sea ITR region to support
operations, and the frequency of these flights may vary depending on
the location and type of operation. Fixed-wing aircraft will generally
be used to transport personnel and cargo across development areas.
Helicopters will be used to transport personnel and cargo to coastal or
offshore facilities and to access remote areas. Flight altitude for
personnel and cargo transport flights will generally be above 305
meters (m) (1,000 feet (ft)) above ground level unless inclement
weather requires a lower flight altitude for personnel safety. Aerial
pipeline inspections will be conducted frequently year-round using
helicopters or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Environmental
monitoring surveys will be conducted using helicopters, UAVs, or fixed-
wing aircraft depending on the type of survey and the frequency of
these environmental monitoring surveys will vary across location and
time of year during the ITR period.
Vehicle and equipment operations will occur on the existing gravel
road system and gravel pads within the ITR region to support
operations. Expansion of existing gravel roads and gravel pads as well
as construction of new gravel roads and gravel pads will be conducted
to support operations as needed throughout the ITR period. Gravel roads
and pads typically will be constructed or expanded during the winter,
although new gravel placement on the tundra may occur during any
season. Equipment that will be used to construct or expand gravel roads
and pads includes all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), graders, loaders,
excavators, rollers, dump trucks, tractors, bulldozers, vehicles, and
other heavy equipment. Gravel road and pad maintenance will occur as
needed to support transportation and operations throughout the ITR
period. Gravel will be obtained from existing gravel mine sites and new
gravel mine sites that may be developed within the ITR region.
During the winter, ice roads and ice pads will be constructed both
onshore and offshore to support vehicle and equipment transportation
and operations. The number, size, and personnel occupancy of ice roads
and pads will vary each winter depending on the operations. Some ice
roads will be constructed annually in the same location and other ice
roads will be constructed in different locations based on operation
requirements that vary during the ITR period. Offshore ice roads,
trails, and pads will be constructed on floating sea ice or grounded
ice in shallow water (less than 2 m (7 ft)). Offshore ice roads,
trails, and pads may be constructed as early as December and be used
until May during each winter. Equipment that will be used to construct
ice roads, trails, and pads includes tracked vehicles, tractors,
snowplows, pump trucks, ATVs, graders, and loaders.
Vehicle operations will occur on the tundra to support surveys,
scout transportation routes, conduct environmental monitoring studies,
and support infrastructure inspections and maintenance activities.
Tundra travel will occur year-round throughout the ITR period.
Equipment that will be used for tundra travel includes tracked
vehicles, ATVs, snowmachines, Tucker Sno-Cat vehicles, and Rolligons.
Vessel transit and barging operations will support transportation
of personnel, equipment, and supplies for operations. There are several
marine dock facilities that will be used to support vessel transit and
barging operations in the ITR region including West Dock, Oliktok Dock,
and other private dock facilities in development areas. West Dock is
located on the northwestern shore of Prudhoe Bay east of Point
McIntyre. Oliktok Dock is located on the eastern side of West Harrison
Bay at Oliktok Point. Maintenance dredging or screeding will be
conducted as needed at the marine dock facilities. Majority of the
vessel transit and barging operations will occur during the open water
season (July through October). Vessels of various sizes will be used to
support transportation activities and may include crew boats,
hovercrafts, zodiac vessels, and catamarans. Hovercrafts will also be
used to transport personnel and cargo during both the ice-covered
season and open water season. Barges, sealifts, and tugboats will be
used to transport facility modules, construction materials, cargo,
fuel, and other heavy equipment during the open water season. Sealifts
are anticipated to occur over multiple years of the ITR period to
transport facility modules to Oliktok Dock or West Dock, and offloading
of sealifts may occur in and around offshore, subtidal, or intertidal
areas of the Beaufort Sea. Barge lightering may be used to transfer
cargo between vessels to allow vessels to enter shallow water. Barges
may be transferred to shallow draft tugs for nearshore transportation.
During offloading, barges may be staged offshore if dock space is
limited.
Surveys and Studies
A variety of surveys and studies will be conducted such as
geophysical surveys, airborne gravity/magnetic surveys, geotechnical
surveys, seismic exploration surveys, vibroseis seismic surveys,
vertical seismic profiles (VSPs), seafloor imaging, offshore bathymetry
surveys, shallow hazard surveys, open water marine vibroseis surveys,
environmental monitoring studies, and aerial infrared (AIR) surveys to
detect polar bear dens. These surveys and studies may occur with
routine frequency or be conducted as needed for specific projects. The
specific locations and numbers of surveys and studies will vary
depending on location-specific and operation-specific needs throughout
the ITR period.
Geophysical surveys will be conducted to collect information about
subsurface geology. Geophysical survey personnel will survey the
surface of the land or seafloor to collect information on near-surface
hazards that can be avoided during drilling operations or map deep
strata beneath the surface of the ground to search for gas and oil-
bearing rock formations. Geophysical surveys will occur routinely at
existing development areas.
Airborne gravity and airborne magnetic surveys will record passive
measurements of the Earth's gravitational and magnetic fields to
collect information on potential geologic structures that may contain
oil and gas. Surveys conducted onshore will use rotary-wing aircraft
and surveys conducted offshore will use fixed-wing aircraft. Survey
flight altitudes for rotary-wing aircraft will range from 91.5 m (300
ft) to 152.4 m (500 ft)above ground level. Survey flight altitude for
fixed-wing aircraft will be a minimum of 152.4 m (500 ft) above sea
level.
Geotechnical surveys will consist of collecting shallow core
samples to provide information about soil conditions where onshore and
offshore roads, pipelines, structures, or other facilities are planned
to be constructed or to locate gravel sources. Geotechnical surveys
will often occur simultaneously with other operations such as ice or
gravel road construction or seismic exploration surveys. Geotechnical
survey personnel will generally use winter tundra travel routes to
access their survey areas and use a geotechnical drill unit to collect
the core samples. A small mobile camp to support the survey personnel
and other machinery will often be used during these geotechnical
surveys.
[[Page 11245]]
Geotechnical surveys will occur routinely at existing development
areas.
Seismic exploration surveys will collect information on the
subsurface structure of rock formations. Sound energy waves will be
sent into the ground using an energy source such as an airgun or
vibroseis, where different layers within the Earth's crust reflect this
energy. These reflected energy waves will be recorded by geophones in
the ground to identify hydrocarbon-containing structures. Vibroseis
seismic operations will use truck-mounted vibrators that emit frequency
energy into the ground, and these operations may occur both onshore and
on sea ice. Vibroseis seismic operations may consist of 40 to 200
personnel, small and heavy equipment, and a mobile sled-mounted camp to
support personnel. Vibroseis seismic operations may occur during the
winter from January through May.
VSP surveys will consist of lowering geophones into a well bore on
land and repeatedly activating the energy source to gather seismic data
from the well. These surveys will be conducted both on and off a drill
pad, extending up to 5 km (3 mi) from the drilling rig, and up to eight
personnel will conduct these surveys.
Seafloor imagery surveys will collect information about the
seafloor by emitting sound energy towards the seafloor and interpreting
the reflected sound energy to create a two-dimensional image of the
seafloor and any features or objects on it. Equipment that will be used
during these seafloor imagery surveys includes side-scan sonar that is
towed behind a vessel. Side-scan sonar will generally emit high-
frequency sound greater than 200 kilohertz (kHz).
Offshore bathymetry studies will collect information about the
water depth, seafloor contours, hazards, and other environmental
conditions. Equipment that will be used during these bathymetry surveys
includes echosounders, such as a single-beam or multi-beam sonar
device, that is mounted on the vessel's hull or on a side-mounted pole.
Single-beam sonar devices emit a high-frequency single pulse of sound
to record water depth, and these devices may operate at a frequency of
either 100 kHz or 200 kHz. Multi-beam sonar devices will be composed of
a transducer array that emits a swath of sound, motion sensor on the
vessel, gyrocompass on the vessel, and a sound velocity probe in order
to create a three-dimensional view of the seafloor. Multi-beam sonar
devices may generally operate at a frequency of 240 kHz.
Shallow hazard surveys will collect information about the seafloor
and immediate subsurface. Equipment that will be used during these
shallow hazard surveys includes a high-frequency sub-bottom profiler,
intermediate-frequency profiler, and a multi-channel system, which is
an array of hydrophones towed by a vessel to receive reflected sound
energy emitted by the sparker. Different types of sub-bottom profilers
may be used depending on the type of seafloor imagery required for the
shallow hazard surveys and the general frequency of this equipment may
range from 0.3 to 20 kHz.
Open water marine vibroseis may be conducted as a potential
alternative to using traditional airguns for offshore oil and gas
surveys. Equipment that will be used during these marine vibroseis
surveys includes a vibrating plate or shell to displace water to
produce acoustic signals.
Environmental monitoring studies to support oil and gas activities
will include but are not limited to those that examine geomorphology
(soils, ice content, permafrost); archaeology and cultural resources;
vegetation mapping; analysis of fish, bird, and mammal species and
their habitat; acoustic monitoring; hydrology; and other freshwater,
marine, and terrestrial studies of the Arctic coastal and offshore
regions. Environmental monitoring studies may be conducted by
individual operators or in cooperation with other entities such as
government agencies, academic institutions, or local communities. These
environmental monitoring studies will often be conducted in response to
regulatory requirements and may occur across multiple years. Equipment
that will be used during environmental monitoring studies may include
vehicles, vessels, snow machines or tuckers, helicopters, or fixed-wing
aircraft depending on the type of study. Flight altitudes for fixed-
wing aircraft may range from 30 m (98 ft) to 450 m (1,476 ft) depending
on the type of study. Environmental monitoring surveys will be
conducted to fulfill regulatory and permit requirements and support
natural resource exploration and development in the ITR region
throughout the ITR period.
AIR surveys will be conducted to detect maternal polar bear dens
near Industry each winter. Infrared cameras mounted on a fixed-wing
aircraft will be used to detect body heat from denning female polar
bears that permeates through the snow.
Well Drilling and Production
Drilling, production, and maintenance of operating wells for oil
and gas exploration, development, and production at existing facilities
will occur throughout the ITR period. Industry also plans to drill new
exploration, appraisal, and production wells within the ITR region
depending on resources and other factors. The number and location of
these well drilling and maintenance activities will vary throughout the
ITR period, but the level of these activities is anticipated to be
similar to previous years. New wells may require construction of new
gravel pads or new gravel roads or ice roads to access well locations.
New wells may also require installation of stream crossings, vertical
support members (VSMs), pipelines, power cables, and fiber optic cables
to support well drilling and production activities. Temporary camps may
be established to accommodate personnel during well drilling and
production activities as needed. Equipment that will be used to support
well drilling, production, and maintenance activities includes drill
rigs, pumps, processing facilities, and support infrastructure.
Industry plans to conduct plugging and abandonment of wells that are
currently suspended or will be suspended during the ITR period. The
number of wells that may be plugged and abandoned will vary each year
throughout the ITR period but the level of these activities is
anticipated to be similar to previous years. These activities may be
supported by aircraft or vehicles using the existing road network
depending on the location of the well that will be plugged and
abandoned.
Artificial and natural islands along the Beaufort Sea coastline may
serve as well drilling platforms for offshore production. Artificial
islands may be constructed at various times of the year using a
combination of gravel, boulders, artificial structures, or ice.
Vibratory and impact pile driving will be conducted to install
conductor pipes, foundation pipes, and sheet piles to support
development of the islands for production. Monitoring and maintenance
of the islands used for production will be conducted as needed
throughout the ITR period. Monitoring inspections may use sonar and
divers, and these inspections may occur multiple times throughout each
year of the ITR period depending on weather and wave conditions.
Pipelines
Maintenance of existing terrestrial pipelines (buried and above
ground)
[[Page 11246]]
and subsea pipelines to transport oil and gas products will occur
throughout the ITR period. Pipeline inspections and maintenance
activities will be conducted by tundra travel vehicles throughout the
year. Industry will replace and extend existing pipelines and
associated infrastructure as needed to maintain the integrity of the
pipeline system throughout the ITR region. New pipelines may be
installed within the ITR region to transport oil and gas products from
existing wells or new wells. Pipeline installation will generally occur
during winter and ice roads will be constructed to support pipeline
installation. VSMs will be installed using vibratory and impact pile
driving or drilling to support pipelines above ground.
Support Facilities, Infrastructure and Functions
Support facilities and infrastructure include the Deadhorse
Airport, Dalton Highway, and Spine Road to transport personnel,
equipment, and supplies across the North Slope of Alaska. Permanent
camps will be used to house personnel at operation centers, processing
facilities, drill sites, and other similar facilities. Temporary camps
may be installed for specific projects or travel with personnel to
complete projects as needed. Other support functions will include waste
management, emergency response training for personnel, in-water
dredging and screeding to remove or deposit sediment materials and
smooth the seafloor for in-water operations, and pile driving to
construct docks and land structures.
Waste management protocols will be implemented in an effort to
prevent interactions with wildlife. Solid waste from camps will be
disposed of at the Oxbow Landfill in the Prudhoe Bay Development or
other permitted facilities. Food and burnable wastes will often be
incinerated. Food waste will be carefully managed to avoid attracting
wildlife such as placing food waste in wildlife-proof receptacles.
Drilling and production wastes will be injected into underground
injection control disposal wells where it will be inaccessible to
wildlife and will not have the potential to contact any sources of
groundwater or surface soils. Hazardous waste will be kept inside
closed containers and disposed of in accordance with applicable
regulations.
Emergency and oil spill response training activities for personnel
will occur at various times throughout the year during the ITR period.
Oil spill equipment deployment exercises conducted during the ice-
covered period will use snowmachines, ATVs, portable generators, skid
steer loaders, snow blowers, and various types of equipment to cut ice
slots or drill holes through floating sea ice. Other equipment and
supplies that will be used during emergency response training
activities include vessels, trucks, booms, and sorbents. The location
and frequency of emergency and oil spill response training activities
will vary depending on the sea ice or winter tundra conditions and
training requirements.
In-water dredging and screeding will be conducted to remove and
deposit seafloor sediment and smooth the seafloor to support in-water
operations. These activities will be conducted during the open water
season of each year at various dock locations including but not limited
to Oliktok Dock and West Dock. Dredging may also be conducted during
the winter depending on conditions. Equipment that will be used for
dredging includes a barge-mounted suction dredge, excavator, or a crane
with a dredging bucket on a barge platform. Equipment that will be used
for screeding includes a device such as a plow or rake-like structure
that is attached to a barge or backhoe.
Pile driving or drilling activities will be conducted to support
construction or repair of docks, bridges, and offshore or riverine
structures as needed throughout the ITR period. Pile driving activities
may include vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, drilling, and
down-the-hole drilling, and the pile driving methods, depending on the
project requirements.
Anticipated Future Projects
Industry anticipates that the oil and gas exploration and
development activities described above will continue at levels similar
to previous years during the ITR period throughout the ITR region.
There are also several new projects anticipated for the ITR period in
addition to the routine oil and gas operations described above. Those
projects are described in AOGA's Request and are not a comprehensive or
exhaustive list of future projects that will occur during the ITR
period. The scope of future projects and their associated schedules may
change, and some listed projects may not occur at all. All projects
that do occur, and for which LOAs are requested under the proposed ITR,
will fall within the class of oil and gas exploration, production,
development, and transportation activities described in AOGA's Request
(and appendices) and summarized above.
Mitigation Measures
The applicant has proposed a decision framework and a number of
mitigation measures in section 9 of their Request in order to minimize
the effects of proposed activities on polar bears and walruses and
effect the least practicable adverse impacts on those stocks. AOGA's
proposed measures include mitigation for general avoidance and
minimization that apply to a variety of their planned activities as
well as measures specific to aircraft and vessels; they have also
included in their Request plans for conducting maternal polar bear den
surveys and methods for minimizing the impacts of their activities on
the subsistence harvest of polar bears and walruses.
The general avoidance and minimization measures proposed in AOGA's
Request include maintaining a current polar bear and walrus interaction
plan in coordination with the FWS that details their protocols for food
and waste management, training, snow removal, polar bear and walrus
avoidance and encounters, and polar bear and walrus reporting
procedures. The applicant also intends to design facilities and plan
projects in such a way that polar bears' access to attractants is
reduced. Further, they will designate personnel for specific activities
to observe and record sightings of polar bears and walruses. Finally,
they highlight how they will avoid operating equipment in potential den
locations.
Proposed mitigation measures for aircraft use include not flying
below an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) or within 805 m (0.5 mi) of polar
bears or walruses observed on ice or land except in emergency
situations. Helicopters will not be allowed to hover or circle over
polar bears or walruses. Additionally, the applicant has proposed that
if weather conditions prevent flying at an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft)
or higher, that the pilot will avoid areas of known polar bear and
walrus concentration.
The proposed measures for vessel use include having observers to
monitor for polar bears and walruses during marine operations and
maintaining the maximum distance possible from concentrations of polar
bears or walruses, as well as not approaching within an 805-m (0.5-mi)
radius of any polar bears or walruses observed on land or sea ice
except in the case of an emergency. Furthermore, vessels will not
separate groups of two or more walruses and will reduce speed and
maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi) exclusion zone around groups of 12 or
[[Page 11247]]
more walruses in the water or polar bears on ice. Vessels that are over
15 m (50 ft) long will maintain a distance of 805 m (0.5 mi) from any
walrus haulout. When visibility is reduced, vessels will adjust speed
accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to walruses.
AOGA plans to survey for maternal polar bear dens via AIR during
the early polar bear denning season, in November through January. AOGA
LOA holders will conduct one AIR survey of all denning habitat within
1.6 km (1 mi) of winter activity. This survey would occur in November
or December. LOA holders will also conduct a second survey of denning
habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of winter activities in the high and
moderate denning density zones established by FWS (for more information
about the creation of denning density zones and a map, a summary of
this information is available in Supplemental Information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694.The second survey
would occur in December or January. Additionally, surveyed locations
that yield heat signatures that indicate the possible presence of a
maternal polar bear den will be re-surveyed. Protocols for conducting
the maternal polar bear den surveys are documented in section 9.2 of
the Request. If AIR surveys yield any putative polar bear dens within
1.6 km (1 mi) of planned activities, AOGA will consult with the FWS and
if necessary, will treat the site as an active den and create an
exclusion zone or buffer around the suspected den site such that it
will not be disturbed by any project activities for the remainder of
the denning season (November to April). The applicant has also proposed
follow-up surveys via AIR, handheld or vehicle-mounted infrared cameras
or binoculars, or the use of unmanned aerial system (UAS) to confirm
den presence or identify when the den is no longer in use. Known active
den sites will be monitored by personnel in trucks or off-road
vehicles, or by remote cameras that can record or stream data. This
monitoring of bears' activity can assist with avoiding disturbance,
especially during the den emergence period when polar bear sows and
cubs make repeated short trips outside before returning to the den.
Monitoring will be conducted from an appropriate distance established
in consultation with the FWS to avoid disturbance from the monitoring
activities. Finally, personnel working during the den emergence period
will be trained to look for signs of polar bear dens in their work
areas and dedicated personnel may be assigned to monitor work areas for
polar bears to protect workers and allow polar bears to pass through
undisturbed.
Trained and qualified personnel will monitor for, record, and
report polar bear and walrus sightings, and initiate mitigation
measures (Request, sections 9 and 10). LOA holders will report the
efficacy of mitigation measures and any observed effects of industry
activities on these species. Monitoring personnel will complete a
training program approved by FWS. Details of the monitoring procedures
will be provided in a FWS-approved, site- and project-specific marine
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan.
To help ensure that incidental taking of polar bears and walruses
does not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the
species for Alaska Native subsistence hunting opportunities, the
Request states all LOA applicants will provide the FWS documentation of
communication and coordination with Alaska Native communities
potentially affected by the specified activity and, as appropriate,
with representative subsistence hunting and co-management
organizations. If Alaska Native communities or representative
subsistence hunting organizations express concerns about the potential
impacts of specified activities on subsistence activities, and such
concerns are not resolved during this initial communication and
coordination process, then a plan of cooperation (POC) must be
developed and submitted with the applicant's request for an LOA. In
developing the POC, the LOA applicant will further engage with Alaska
Native communities and/or representative subsistence hunting
organizations to provide information and respond to questions and
concerns. The POC must provide adequate measures to ensure that
specified activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of polar bears and walruses for Alaska Native subsistence
uses.
Should community outreach result in concerns about adverse impacts
to subsistence harvest from the planned activities, the Request states
that LOA holders will develop a POC to address those concerns and
prevent interference with the subsistence harvest. Regardless of the
need for a POC, the applicant will limit the timing of activities
(including aircraft- and vessel-based activities) and avoid known
locations of importance for the subsistence harvest of polar bears and
walruses.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region
Polar bears and walruses are the marine mammal species managed by
the FWS likely found within the specified geographic region.
Information on the range, stocks, biology, and climate change impacts
on polar bears and walruses was considered in the development of these
proposed ITRs. A summary of this information is available in
supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694.
Potential Impacts of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals
Impacts of Surface Activities on Polar Bears
Disturbance impacts on polar bears will be influenced by the type,
duration, intensity, timing, and location of the source of disturbance.
The noises, sights, and smells produced by these activities could
elicit variable responses from polar bears, ranging from avoidance to
attraction. When disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally
by walking, running, or swimming away from a noise source, or
physiologically via increased heart rates or hormonal stress responses
(Harms et al. 1997; Tempel and Gutierrez 2003). However, individual
response to noise disturbance can be based on previous interactions,
sex, age, and maternal status (Anderson and Aars 2008; Dyck and Baydack
2004). Noise and odors could also potentially attract polar bears to
work areas. Attracting polar bears to these locations could result in
human-polar bear interactions, incidental harassment, and/or
intentional take (which is not authorized via ITRs) by hazing or
defense of human life. The Request includes mitigation measures to
manage attractants in work areas and reduce the risk of human-polar
bear interactions.
Human-Polar Bear Interactions
From mid-July to mid-November, SBS polar bears can be found in
large numbers and high densities on barrier islands, along the
coastline, and in the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea,
particularly on and around Barter and Cross Islands (Wilson et al.
2017). This distribution leads to a significantly higher number of
human-polar bear interactions on land and at offshore structures during
the open-water season than other times of the year. Polar bears that
remain on the multi-year pack ice are not typically present in the ice-
free areas where vessel traffic occurs, as barges and vessels
associated with
[[Page 11248]]
Industry activities travel in open water and avoid large ice floes.
On land, most polar bear observations occur within 2 km (1.2 mi) of
the coastline based on polar bear monitoring reports. Facilities within
the offshore and coastal areas are more likely to be approached by
polar bears, and they may act as physical barriers to polar bear
movements. As polar bears encounter these facilities, the chances for
human-polar bear interactions increase. However, polar bears have
frequently been observed crossing existing roads and causeways, and
they appear to traverse the human-developed areas as easily as the
undeveloped areas based on monitoring reports.
A larger percentage of SBS polar bears are spending more time on
land during the open-water season, which may increase the risk for
human-polar bear interactions (Atwood et al. 2016; Kelner et al. 2022;
Rode et al. 2022). It is likely that human-polar bear interactions will
occur at some point during the specified activities. Per the Request,
operators would maintain human-polar bear interaction plans and
attractant management plans, design facilities and plan projects to
reduce the possibility of polar bears reaching attractants and humans,
and monitor for polar bears. These plans and requirements are designed
to reduce human-polar bear interactions and minimize the risks to polar
bears and humans when interactions occur. Interaction plans detail how
to respond to the presence of polar bears, the chain of command and
communication, and required training for personnel. Attractant (e.g.,
human food, garbage) management plans can prevent polar bears from
associating humans with food, which mitigates the risk of human-polar
bear interactions (Atwood and Wilder 2021). Information gained from
monitoring polar bears near industrial infrastructure can be useful for
better understanding polar bear distribution, behavior, and
interactions with humans. Tools that may be used to facilitate
detection and monitoring of polar bears include bear monitors, thermal
cameras, and remotely operated cameras.
Effects of Aircraft Activities on Polar Bears
The Federal Aviation Administration tests aircraft-produced sound
at all frequencies measured (50 Hz to 10 kHz) (Healy 1974). At
frequencies centered at 5 kHz, jets flying at 300 m (984 ft) produced
\1/3\ octave band noise levels of 84 to 124 decibels (dB), propeller-
driven aircraft produced 75 to 90 dB, and helicopters produced 60 to 70
dB (Richardson et al. 1995). Thus, the frequency and level of airborne
sounds typically produced by aircraft are unlikely to cause either
temporary or permanent impairment to polar bear hearing unless polar
bears are very close to the sound source (Southall et al. 2019).
Although neither temporary nor permanent hearing impairment is
anticipated during the specified activities, impacts from aircraft
overflights have the potential to elicit biologically significant
behavioral responses from polar bears. Exposure to aircraft overflights
is expected to result in short-term behavior changes, such as walking,
running, or ceasing to rest and, therefore, has the potential to be
energetically costly. Quigley et al. (2022 and 2024) conducted
intentional aircraft overflights above polar bears to determine their
responses to overflights. Researchers approached polar bears repeatedly
at decreasing altitudes with an average flight altitude of 143 m (469
ft). Polar bears exhibited biologically meaningful behavioral responses
during 66.6 percent of experimental overflights. These behavioral
responses were significantly correlated with the aircraft's altitude,
the bear's location (e.g., coastline, barrier island), and the bear's
activity at the time of the encounter. In a separate study, polar bears
associated with dens were exposed to aircraft flying at altitudes of
150 m (492 ft) or less and exhibited various responses that ranged from
increased head movement and observation of the disturbance to the
initiation of rapid movement and/or den abandonment (Larson et al.
2020). Aircraft activities can impact polar bears across all seasons;
however, aircraft have a greater potential to disturb both individuals
and groups of polar bears on land during the summer and fall. These
onshore polar bears are primarily fasting or seeking alternative
terrestrial foods (Cherry et al. 2009; Griffen et al. 2022), and polar
bear responses to aircraft overflights may result in metabolic costs to
limited energy reserves. To reduce potential disturbance of polar bears
during aircraft activities, the Request incorporates mitigation
measures, such as minimum flight altitudes over polar bears and their
frequently used areas and flight restrictions around known polar bear
aggregations, to be conducted when safe to perform these operations
during aircraft activities.
Effects of In-Water Activities on Polar Bears
While polar bears swim in and hunt from open water, they spend less
time in the water than most marine mammals. Stirling (1974) reported
that polar bears observed near Devon Island during late July and early
August spent 4.1 percent of their time swimming and an additional 0.7
percent engaged in aquatic stalking of prey. More recently, Lone et al.
(2018) found 75 percent of polar bears swam daily during open-water
months, with animals spending 9.4 percent of their time in July in the
water. While polar bears typically swim with their ears above water,
there are occasions when a polar bear may dive and therefore have its
ears below the surface.
Polar bear behavior is expected to be impacted by the presence of
humans and equipment in the water. In 2012, during the open-water
season, Shell USA, Inc (Shell) vessels encountered a few polar bears
swimming in ice-free water more than 112.6 km (70 mi) offshore in the
Chukchi Sea. In those instances, the bears were observed to either swim
away from or approach the Shell vessels, sometimes swimming around a
stationary vessel before leaving. In at least one encounter, a polar
bear approached, touched, and investigated a stationary vessel from the
water before swimming away. We anticipate that polar bears that
encounter vessels during the specified activities may have an evasive
or curious response, similar to these reports.
Some of the specified activities may introduce noise into the
marine environment at sound levels capable of causing a behavioral
change or temporary or permanent damage to polar bear hearing. However,
the majority of the sound-producing instruments that will be used do
not produce in-water sound above the threshold designated for Level B
harassment or they do not produce sound within the hearing range of
polar bears (for a discussion of this threshold and polar bear hearing
see supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket
No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694. Echosounders and side-scan sonar are typically
operated at a frequency at or above 200 kilohertz (kHz), which is
outside the hearing range for polar bears (Southall et al. 2019). Other
equipment types, such as sub-bottom profilers and sparkers may produce
sounds within the hearing range of polar bears (2 kHz to 16 kHz and 300
hertz (Hz) to 1.5 kHz, respectively), and at an estimated sound source
level above the Level B harassment threshold (202 decibels referenced
to a pressure of 1 microPascal (dB re 1[micro]Pa)); however, their
sound production is typically highly directional and focused within a
narrow beam. While exposure to other
[[Page 11249]]
underwater sounds such as those created by such as screeding, dredging,
pile driving, or anchor handling and thrusting may cause changes in
behavior, temporary or permanent changes in hearing sensitivity, or
discomfort, polar bears are not expected to be frequently exposed
because they do not typically swim with their heads under water unless
diving (Lone et al. 2018).
Effects to Denning Polar Bears
Known or suspected polar bear dens around the oilfield, discovered
opportunistically and/or during planned surveys for tracking marked
polar bears and detecting polar bear dens, are monitored by the FWS.
However, these sites are only a small percentage of the total active
polar bear dens for the SBS stock in any given year. Each year LOA and
incidental harassment authorization (IHA) holders coordinate with the
FWS to conduct surveys to attempt to determine the location of known or
suspected polar bear dens and denning habitat within 1 mile of human
activity. Per typical LOA requirements, if a known or suspected den
site is located, LOA holders immediately consult with the FWS to
determine if additional surveys or mitigation measures are required.
The exact prescription of mitigation measures may vary based on the
specifics of an individual den site but in the past, after locating a
known or suspected den site, FWS has worked with operators to implement
various mitigation measures such as activity exclusion zones and 24-
hour monitoring of the den site. In their Request, AOGA has committed
to ``maintain a minimum avoidance distance of 805 m from all polar
bears at a den site when operating vehicles, vessels, and aircraft,
except in the event of an emergency or a den-specific plan when safe
and practicable to do so.'' The responses of denning polar bears to
disturbance and the consequences of these responses can vary throughout
the denning process, which entails four stages: den establishment,
early denning, late denning, and post-emergence; definitions and
descriptions are provided by Woodruff et al. (2022a) and are also
located in the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021;
revised 90 FR 27398, June 26, 2025). The probability that denning polar
bears will be disturbed by nearby industry activities and the polar
bears' resulting responses to disturbance (den abandonment, early
emergence from the den, or early departure from the den site) varies by
denning stage (A summary of this information is available in
supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694.
Impacts of Surface Activities on Walruses
Walruses do not inhabit the Beaufort Sea frequently. The likelihood
of encountering walruses during Industry operations is low and limited
to the open-water season. During the time period of this ITR, Industry
operations may occasionally encounter small groups of walruses swimming
in open water or hauled out onto ice floes or along the coast. Industry
monitoring data have reported 49 walruses between 1995 and 2023, with
only a few instances of disturbance to those walruses (AES Alaska 2015;
FWS unpublished data). If walruses are encountered during the specified
activities, the interaction could potentially result in disturbance.
Anecdotal observations by walrus hunters and researchers suggest
that males tend to be more tolerant of disturbances than females, and
individuals tend to be more tolerant than groups. Females with
dependent calves are considered least tolerant of disturbances. In the
Chukchi Sea, disturbance events are known to cause walrus groups to
abandon land or ice haulouts and occasionally result in trampling
injuries or cow-calf separations, both of which are potentially fatal.
Calves and young animals at terrestrial haulouts are particularly
vulnerable to trampling injuries. However, due to the lack of previous
walrus haulouts in the ITR area, the most likely potential impacts of
the specified activities include displacement from preferred foraging
areas, increased stress, energy expenditure, interference with feeding,
and masking of communications. Any impact of human presence on walruses
is likely to be limited to a few individuals due to their geographic
range and seasonal distribution.
The reaction of walruses to vessel traffic is dependent upon vessel
type, distance, speed, and previous exposure to disturbances. Walruses
in the water appear to be less readily disturbed by vessels than
walruses hauled out on land or ice. Furthermore, barges and vessels
associated with Industry activities travel in open water and avoid
large ice floes or land where walruses are likely to be found. In
addition, walruses can use a vessel as a haulout platform. In 2009,
during Industry activities in the Chukchi Sea, an adult walrus was
observed hauled out on the stern of a vessel.
Effects of Aircraft Activities on Walruses
Aircraft overflights may disturb walruses. Reactions to aircraft
vary with range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as well as walrus
age, sex, and group size. Adult females, calves, and immature walruses
tend to be more sensitive to aircraft disturbance. Walruses are
particularly sensitive to changes in engine noise and are more likely
to stampede when planes turn or fly low overhead. Researchers
conducting aerial surveys for walruses in sea ice habitats have
observed little reaction to fixed-winged aircraft above 457 m (1,500
ft) (FWS unpublished data). Although the intensity of the reaction to
noise is variable, walruses are probably most susceptible to
disturbance by fast-moving and low-flying aircraft (100 m (328 ft)
above ground level) or aircraft that change or alter speed or
direction. In the Chukchi Sea, there are recent examples of walruses
being disturbed by aircraft flying in the vicinity of haulouts. It
appears that walruses are more sensitive to disturbance when hauled out
on land versus sea ice.
Effects of In-Water Activities on Walruses
Walruses hear sounds both in air and in water. They have been shown
to hear from 60 Hz to 23 kHz in air (Reichmuth et al. 2020). Tests of
underwater hearing have shown their range to be between 1 kHz and 12
kHz with greatest sensitivity at 12 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2002). The
underwater hearing abilities of the walrus have not been studied
sufficiently to develop species-specific criteria for preventing
harmful exposure. However, sound level thresholds have been developed
for members of the ``other marine carnivore'' group of marine mammals.
For a discussion of these thresholds information is available in
Supplemental Information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694.). As we discussed in Effects of In-Water
Activities on Polar Bears, the majority of the sound-producing
instruments that will be used during the specified activities will not
produce in-water sound above the threshold designated for Level B
harassment or they do not produce sound within the hearing range of
walruses.
If walruses are present within an ensonified area that reaches
Level B harassment thresholds, noise may prevent ordinary communication
between individuals and prevent them from locating one another. The
noise may also prevent walruses from using potential habitats in the
Beaufort Sea
[[Page 11250]]
and may have the potential to alter the frequency or duration of
biologically significant behaviors such as feeding, foraging, or
nursing. The most likely response of walruses to acoustic disturbances
in open water would be for animals to move away from the source of the
disturbance. Displacement from a preferred feeding area may reduce
foraging success, increase stress levels, and increase energy
expenditures.
Impacts of the Specified Activities on Polar Bear and Walrus Prey
Species
Information on the potential impacts of the specified activities on
polar bear and walrus prey species can be found in the Supplemental
Information. Based on this information, the FWS does not anticipate any
substantial impacts of prey availability to polar bears or walrus as a
result of AOGA's specified activities.
Potential Impacts of Oil Spills on Polar Bears and Walruses
The FWS reviewed the potential impacts of oil spills on the SBS
stock of polar bears and walruses, as well as records of oil spills in
the specified geographic region and evaluated oil spill response
methods in the specified geographic region. Information from this
review can be found in Supplemental Information at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694. Based on this
review, the likelihood of a large oil spill in the next 5 years is low.
In the unlikely event of a large spill, the likelihood that spills
would contaminate areas occupied by large numbers of bears or walruses
is low. While individual polar bears could be negatively affected by a
spill, the potential for a stock-level effect is low unless the spill
contacted an area where large numbers of polar bears were gathered.
Known polar bear aggregations tend to be seasonal during the fall,
further minimizing the potential of a spill to impact the stock.
Onshore oil spills would not impact walruses unless they occurred on or
near beaches or oil moved into the offshore environment. In the event
of a spill that occurs during the open-water season, oil could be
released into the water column, or it could drift from onshore water
sources to offshore areas, possibly encountering a small number of
walruses. However, as was stated earlier, the Beaufort Sea is not
within the primary range for walruses. Therefore, the probability of
walruses encountering oil or waste products as a result of a spill from
Industry activities is low. Therefore, we conclude that the likelihood
of a large spill occurring is low, but if a large spill does occur, the
likelihood that it would contaminate areas occupied by large numbers of
polar bears or walruses is also low. If a large spill does occur, we
conclude that only small numbers of polar bears or walruses are likely
to be affected, though some animals may be killed, and there would be
only a negligible impact to the SBS stock or walrus population.
Take Estimates
Incidental Take Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
Below we discuss three types of MMPA take and how such takes could
occur in the polar bear and walrus contexts. This discussion is
provided for context and background and does not necessarily reflect
what is anticipated to result from the specified activities.
Lethal Take
Human activity may result in biologically significant impacts to
polar bears and walruses. In the most serious interactions with polar
bears (e.g., vehicle collision, running over an unknown den causing its
collapse), human actions can result in the mortality of polar bears. We
also note that, while not considered incidental, in situations where
there is an imminent threat to human life, polar bears may be killed.
Additionally, though not considered incidental, polar bears have been
accidentally killed during efforts to deter polar bears from a work
area for safety and from direct chemical exposure (81 FR 52276, August
5, 2016). If unintentional disturbance of a female polar bear by human
activity during the denning season caused the female to abandon her
cubs in the den before the cubs can survive on their own, incidental
lethal take of polar bear cubs would occur. Incidental lethal take of
walruses could occur if the animal were directly struck by a vessel or
trampled by other walruses in a human-caused stampede at a walrus
haulout site.
Level A Harassment
Human activity may result in the injury of polar bears or walruses.
Level A harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is defined as
``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which . . . has the
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild.'' 16 U.S.C. 1362(18).
Numerous actions can cause take by Level A harassment of polar bear
cubs during the denning period, such as creating a disturbance that
separates mothers from dependent cubs (Amstrup 2003), inducing early
den emergence during the late denning period (Amstrup and Gardner 1994;
Rode et al. 2018), instigating early departure from the den site during
the post-emergence period (Andersen et al. 2024), or repeatedly
interrupting the nursing or resting of cubs to the extent that it
impacts the cubs' body condition. As with lethal take, walruses are
most vulnerable to Level A harassment when congregated in haulouts. The
risk of stampede-related injuries increases with the number of walruses
hauled out and with the duration spent on coastal haulouts. Calves and
young are the most vulnerable to suffer injuries and/or mortality (88
FR 53510, August 8, 2023).
Level B Harassment
Level B harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is
defined as ``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which . . . has
the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, feeding, or sheltering.'' 16
U.S.C. 1362(18). Changes in behavior that disrupt biologically
significant behaviors or activities for the affected animal are
indicative of take by Level B harassment under the MMPA. Such reactions
include, but are not limited to, the following:
<bullet> Fleeing (running or swimming away from a human or a human
activity);
<bullet> Displaying a stress-related behavior such as jaw or lip-
popping, front leg stomping, vocalizations, circling, intense staring,
or salivating for polar bears;
<bullet> Abandoning or avoiding preferred movement corridors such
as ice floes, leads, polynyas, a segment of coastline, barrier islands,
or other resting sites;
<bullet> Abandoning prey or feeding areas;
<bullet> Using a longer or more difficult route of travel instead
of the intended path;
<bullet> Interrupting breeding, sheltering, or feeding;
<bullet> Moving away at a fast pace (adult) and polar bear cubs or
walrus calves struggling to keep up;
<bullet> Temporary, short-term cessation of nursing or resting
(cubs or calves);
<bullet> Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a prolonged period
(adults); or
<bullet> Loss of hunting opportunity due to disturbance of prey.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other
behavioral responses may be indicative of take by Level B harassment.
Relatively minor changes in behavior such as the animal raising its
head or temporarily changing its direction of travel are not likely to
disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns, and the FWS does
[[Page 11251]]
not view such minor changes in behavior as indicative of a take by
Level B harassment. It is also important to note that eliciting
behavioral responses that equate to take by Level B harassment
repeatedly may result in Level A harassment.
Estimating Take
To evaluate incidental take of polar bears from the specified
activities and inform our MMPA-required findings, we start by
considering the estimates of likely incidental take and the analysis of
associated impacts provided by the Request. We then identify some
inherent uncertainties associated with forecasting impacts in this
context, discuss legislative intent concerning how such uncertainties
are to be considered in the ITR process, and effectuate that intent via
further analysis that considers predictive model results. We then
propose findings that account for qualitative considerations, the
Request's estimates of likely incidental take, and FWS predictive model
results. In light of the inherent uncertainties and challenges with
quantifying take and the disparate results produced through different
methodologies, the Service proposes to still consider its predictive
model results to provide quantitative estimates but will consider the
results alongside additional distinct methodologies.
The FWS predictive model results for incidental take of polar bears
were not a component of determining the MMPA-required findings in the
Beaufort Sea ITRs issued between 1993 and 2016. As a part of a change
introduced around that time for MMPA-required findings, the first
Beaufort Sea ITR using the FWS predictive model was the current, 2021-
2026 Beaufort Sea ITR. The FWS is now further refining its approach to
evaluate MMPA-required findings with additional information, including
the estimates provided by AOGA. The FWS also recognizes that this
approach to rendering MMPA-required findings differs from the
approaches used in ITRs and IHAs concerning polar bears since 2021, in
which we relied on qualitative considerations and predictive model
results but not a separate set of incidental take estimates provided by
the requester. The reason for this change relates to the fact that the
present Request, in providing the estimates and analysis required by 50
CFR 18.27(d), uses methodologies and assumptions that differ from those
employed by FWS's predictive modeling, resulting in different
quantitative estimates. In this context, considering the additional
types of analysis provided by the Request, while continuing to consider
qualitative considerations and the FWS predictive modeling results,
should facilitate more comprehensive analysis to inform FWS's MMPA-
required findings. The approach here also preserves the utility of the
regulatory requirement that requests for ITRs provide estimates of
likely incidental take. This approach is robust, well-tailored to the
present circumstances, and permissible under 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A),
which does not prescribe any particular methodology for rendering
required findings.
Request's Critique of FWS's Methodology for Estimating Take
Appendix A of the Request, ``Critique of USFWS's Methodology for
Estimating Take and Rationale for AOGA's Evidence-Based Approach.'' In
summary, the Request notes that it developed its methodology ``because
the Service's approach--based solely on numerical modeling--has proven
to be flawed and legally insufficient in multiple ways.'' Appendix A
provides four ``primary flaws with the Service's approach . . . .''
The Request's Take Estimation Methods
The Request states that it estimates incidental take of polar bears
via a ``weight of evidence'' approach (Request, p. 3-1). The sources of
data considered include field observations, historical data, modeling,
and literature review (Request, table 3-1). Among the lines of evidence
afforded the most weight are field observations from AOGA's LOA
database, select Industry denning bear case studies, and scientific
literature concerning polar bear biology and denning phenology (see
Request, table 3-1). The Request expresses a high level of confidence
in operators' ability to detect all (or nearly all) polar bears near
industry activities (See Request, p. 3-5 which state ``[w]hile it is
theoretically possible that a bear or bear den in proximity to industry
could go undetected, it is highly unlikely given the necessary
vigilance and extensive and continuous monitoring that occurs during
oil and gas activities.''). The effectiveness of mitigation measures is
also addressed. See, e.g., Request, section 3.7. Provided below is a
summary of the Request's estimates of incidental take concerning
surface (i.e., non-denning) bears and denning bears.
AOGA Estimates: Surface Bears During All Activities
In estimating the likely incidental take of surface bears, the
Request states that ``. . . the most recent 10-year period of
observational data . . . provides the most reliable estimation of
future incidental take of surface bears resulting from the [specified
activities]'' because ``[t]he 2014-2024 period of observational data
best reflects recent patterns in polar bear distribution and habitat
use in the [Request] area, as well as industry activity, monitoring
methods, and reporting practices that are consistent with today's
regulatory and operational environment'' (Request, p. 3-42. The Request
states that the average number of incidental Level B harassments
observed ``for the recent 10-year period (2014-2024) was 16, with a
standard deviation of (SD) of 9.95 and an annual range of 4-35''
(Request, p. 3-42). Also noted is ``a trend of increased presence of
polar bears in coastal areas and their duration on land, particularly
during the ice-free season.'' For the purposes of estimating incidental
Level B harassment of surface bears from the specified activities, the
Request ``assumes these trends will continue and therefore uses the
five highest incidental take years from the most recent 10-year period
of observational data as the most reasonable representation of
incidental take levels of non-denning bears for the 2026-2031 period''
(Request, p. 3-42). This approach resulted in an estimated ``annual
average of 24'' incidental Level B harassments of surface bears, ``with
a SD of 7.62 and an annual range of 15-35'' (Request, p. 3-42). The
number was derived using a dataset that includes Level B harassment
events that occurred during vessel-based and aircraft-based activities,
therefore the FWS has assumed AOGA intends the estimate to encompass
these activities as well. The Request does not anticipate any forms of
incidental take of surface bears other than Level B harassment.
AOGA Estimates: Denning Bears
The Request states that ``[b]ased on the data from the five highest
years of dens detected near industry during the last decade (Request,
table 3-16), an estimate of 1.8 dens/year may be present near industry
activities'' (Request, p. 3-52). AOGA conducted a denning case study
review that evaluated 64 case studies, 23 of which they found to be
relevant to industry, to ``infer the disposition of denning bears
exposed to industry activity'' (Request, p. 3-47). They provide a full
description of their methodology in section 3.5 and appendix C of their
Request. The results of AOGA's denning case study review are then
summarized as follows: ``87% of dens resulted in no effect, 11%
resulted in the Level B incidental harassment and 2% resulted in Level
A harassment'' (Request, p. 3-53). Applying these probabilities in
light of
[[Page 11252]]
the estimated number of dens near industry activities, and assuming
three bears per den (a sow and two cubs), the Request estimates that
``23 denning bears would experience no effect, 3 denning bears would
experience Level B incidental harassment, and the probability of Level
A harassment is exceedingly low (less than one over the five-year
period)'' (Request, p. 3-53).
AOGA Estimates: Total Take
In sum, with respect to likely incidental take over the 2026-2031
period, the Request estimates the Level B harassment of 123 polar bears
(120 surface bears and three denning bears) and no other forms of take.
Consideration of Model Results
The Request also discusses the methods used by the FWS to estimate
impacts to polar bears in recent regulatory processes (Request, section
3.3 and appendix A). This discussion asserts various flaws in FWS's
modeling approach and characterizes FWS model outputs as substantially
overestimating impacts. For comparative purposes, the Request reports
two sets of results from AOGA-conducted runs of FWS's surface and
denning models: one set described as using FWS parameters, and one set
using parameters developed by AOGA (Request, p. 3-13, tables 3-6 and 3-
7). Each set of results is further compared to AOGA's accounting of
reported take reflected in their LOA database (Request, p. 3-16).
Uncertainties
Disparities in projections of future impacts can result not only
from different interpretations of existing data, but also from use of
different assumptions and methods to account for uncertainties. In the
present context, several inherent uncertainties increase the difficulty
of accurately estimating the future impacts of the specified activities
on polar bears. Most notably, based on general observational data and
reports along with various scientific studies:
<bullet> There is variability in how polar bears use the ITR area
each year and in how individual polar bears respond (if at all) to
industry activities. This is demonstrated by the 43 Level B takes
observed and reported by two operators in the ITR area for calendar
year 2025, which is more than a standard deviation above the annual
Level B take requested.
<bullet> The detailed observation reports submitted by operators
pursuant to MMPA take authorization requirements provide valuable data
concerning, among other things, polar bear distribution in the ITR area
and how polar bears react (if at all) to industrial stimuli. However,
ambient conditions common to the ITR area (e.g., darkness, snow, fog,
and wind) can reduce the ability to observe all polar bears (and
impacts, if any) in the vicinity of industry activities.
<bullet> During the particular denning timeframe when a sow's
abandonment of her maternal den prior to her cub(s) developing
sufficient strength and/or ability to thermoregulate would be presumed
to result in mortality of the cub(s), denning sows are thought to
exhibit a relatively higher tolerance to disturbance. The existing
dataset contains no definitive evidence that an industry activity
caused a maternal den abandonment that in turn resulted in cub
mortality. That said, given environmental conditions, the existence of
scavengers, and difficulty of observation, it remains possible that
this scenario has occurred but was not fully observed.
<bullet> Several scientific studies have found a correlation
between premature maternal den emergence and/or premature maternal den
site departure and cub survival, suggesting these behavioral responses
may result in a decline in cub fitness and associated reduction in cub
survival probability. Observations indicating that denning polar bears
prematurely emerged from their den and/or prematurely departed from
their den site in response to industry disturbance are rare. Assessment
of this potential behavioral response is complicated by natural
variability in the times that undisturbed polar bears establish their
dens, remain in their dens, and remain at their den sites post-
emergence. Also, any disturbance-caused decline in cub fitness would be
difficult to observe, and any associated cub mortality would likely
manifest after the family unit has departed from the observable area
and onto the sea ice.
<bullet> The exact numbers and precise locations of maternal polar
bear dens that will be established in the ITR area during each winter
of the 2026-2031 period is unknown. The exact percentage of those dens
that will be successfully detected and avoided by operators is also
unknown.
Legislative Intent
The FWS addressed how to consider uncertainties regarding the
probability and extent of potential impacts in the ITR context when it
developed its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 18.27. Responding to a
variety of public comments in its final rule, the FWS confirmed that
the approach described in its proposed rule accurately interpreted the
legislative intent behind the 1986 Amendments to the MMPA:
``If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural
or speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A
finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the
probability of occurrence is low but the potential effects may be
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts
must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species
or stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this
balancing test, the Service will thoroughly evaluate the risks
involved and the potential impacts on marine mammal populations.
Such determinations will be made based on the best available
scientific information.'' (54 FR 40338 at 40343, September 29, 1989,
citing 53 FR 8473 at 8474, March 15, 1988; accord, 132 Cong. Rec.
S16305 (Oct. 15, 1986)).
The final rule continues:
``The Service recognizes the tension that exists between
development interests and wildlife resource interests when
restrictions on development are predicated upon the existence of
adverse impacts that are speculative in nature. To resolve these
difficult situations, the legislative history of the 1986 Amendments
endorsed the use of a balancing approach to weigh the likelihood of
occurrence against the severity of the potential impact: The degree
of certainty of occurrence required in these judgments should be
inversely proportional to the resultant harm to the overall
population. 132 Cong. Rec. S16305 (Oct. 15, 1986). In applying this
balancing test, the Service must, of necessity, evaluate each
request for specific regulations on a case-by-case basis'' (54 FR
40338 at 40343, September 29, 1989).
In the present context, where there exists substantial uncertainty
as to the potential impacts of the specified activities, and where high
rates of human-caused cub mortality (which has not been observed in the
ITR area) could represent a significant effect to the SBS stock of
polar bears, the FWS will consider the results of its predictive
modeling to further inform its balancing. While the legislative history
on this point concerns ``negligible impact'' analyses, the FWS will
utilize a similar, comprehensive approach for all MMPA-required
findings.
[[Page 11253]]
The FWS's Predictive Model Results
The FWS conducts predictive modeling that entails four main
components: processes for estimating incidental take of non-denning
bears during surface activities, aircraft activities, and vessel
activities, and a process for estimating incidental take of denning
bears during all operations. A detailed description of these processes,
along with the model code and most recent data inputs, is provided at
FWS-R7-ES-2025-1628 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. The FWS's
predictive model results provide, among other things, a basis for
assessing the probability and severity of potential impacts that the
scientific literature suggests are possible but have not been observed
or are rarely observed in the ITR area.
The FWS recognizes that all predictive analyses and models have
limitations. The FWS further recognizes that its predictive models
contribute to take estimates that have exceeded (and are expected to
exceed) the number of events where biological consequences indicative
of take are observed to result from industry activities. This is partly
because the predictive models are designed to estimate harassment
consistent with the MMPA's harassment definitions, which encompass
certain acts which have ``the potential to'' result in certain
biological consequences, and to account for any unobserved take. When
addressing uncertainties, the models incorporate assumptions that
attempt to strike a balance between potential overestimates and
potential underestimates, but, overall, are more likely to contribute
to an overestimate, rather than an underestimate, of the incidental
take of polar bears. Over the years, the FWS has continually
incorporated new data as it becomes available and refined its modeling
parameters to improve accuracy to the extent practicable. Each
refinement of modeling parameters has been described in the first ITR
or IHA review process in which they were employed. See, e.g., 90 FR
27398, June 26, 2025; and 90 FR 2718, January 13, 2025. More recent
refinements, in addition to incorporating the latest available data,
introduced in the present analysis are as follows:
<bullet> Assessment of the rate of incidental take preceding
intentional take: In past incidental take analyses, we explained that
intentional take events are usually preceded by incidental Level B
harassment, and that since sufficient data were not available to
support application of a reliable correction factor, we included all
intentional take events in our calculations of incidental take rates as
a proxy for estimating incidental take in this context. We identified
this assumption as ``conservative'' in the rulemaking process for the
2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982 at 43049, August 5, 2021). To
increase accuracy in future analyses, we used a structured review
process with designated decision rules to revisit records of
intentional take from 2014-2024 to determine whether incidental Level B
harassment occurred or potentially occurred prior to the intentional
Level B harassment. We found 29 percent of intentional encounters were
not preceded by incidental harassment and we apply this correction
factor in the present analysis.
<bullet> Estimation of polar bear re-sighting rate: In past
incidental take analyses, we estimated numbers of incidental take of
polar bears but lacked sufficient data to further estimate how many
individual polar bears would be subjected to those takes. We then
provided ``small numbers'' determinations that identified and applied a
conservative assumption that each estimated take would accrue to a
different individual polar bear (see, e.g., 82 FR 42982 at 43039,
August 5, 2021). We describe below in outr efforts to refine this
assumption.
<bullet> Development of Offshore Polar Bear Encounter Rate: In past
incidental take analyses, the FWS has used the coastal polar bear
encounter rate to estimate take from offshore activities, while
acknowledging the rate was conservative and greater than the actual
rate of offshore encounters. At the recommendation of AOGA, we explored
the use of data from the National Marine Fisheries Service Aerial
Survey of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM). We subset the ASAMM dataset to
account for decreased visibility due to sea state and observation
limitations A summary of this information is available in Supplemental
Information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-
2026-0694. The effort enabled FWS to develop an offshore polar bear
encounter rate that enables more accurate estimates of take from vessel
activity beyond the barrier islands.
FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Surface Activities
The FWS analyzed take by Level B harassment for polar bears that
may be encountered and potentially impacted during AOGA's specified
activities within the specified geographic region using the predictive
formula presented in the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (hereafter ``2021-
2026 ITR''; 86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021). The formula incorporates
spatio-temporally specific encounter rates and temporally specific
harassment rates. We updated the encounter and harassment rates using
polar bear encounter records submitted since the promulgation of the
2021-2026 ITR. A detailed description of this process, which included
reassessment of the dates for open water and ice seasons evaluation of
the rate of incidental take preceding intentional take, and
establishment of a polar bear re-site rate as described above can be
found in Supplemental Information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in
Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694. During FWS's preliminary review of
their Request, AOGA provided the FWS with digital geospatial files that
included the expected human occupancy for each individual structure
(e.g., each road, pipeline, well pad) of their proposed activities for
each month of the proposed ITR period.
FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Aircraft Activities
Polar bears in the project area will likely be exposed to the
visual and auditory stimulation associated with the applicant's fixed-
wing and helicopter activities; however, these impacts are anticipated
to be minimal and short-term. Low-flying aircraft activities may cause
disruptions in the normal behavioral patterns of polar bears as either
an auditory or visual stimulus, thereby resulting in incidental Level B
harassment. To reduce the likelihood that polar bears are disturbed by
aircraft, AOGA has included a variety of mitigation measures, such as
minimum flight altitudes over polar bears and restrictions on hovering
over polar bears. Meanwhile, the Request also states that certain
aviation activities must be flown at low altitudes by design, including
airborne gravity and airborne magnetic data collection, environmental
(e.g., avian, mammal, and ice) surveys, cultural and archeological
resource surveys, and summer cleanup operations. We estimated the
number of polar bears expected to be harassed by these low-flying
aircraft activities using an estimate of the number of flight hours in
each season and polar bear density zone (i.e., coastal v. inland zone).
These estimates were used as inputs in the take calculation formula
presented in the revised 2021-2026 Regulations (90 FR 2718).
Disturbances from aircraft activity are expected to have no more than
short-term, temporary, and minor impacts on individual polar bears.
[[Page 11254]]
FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Denning Bears
We used the analytical methods presented in previous take
authorizations (e.g., 90 FR 27398, June 26, 2025) to estimate the
effects of the specified activities on denning polar bears. The
statistical model consists of 10,000 iterations of simulated dens that
are exposed to the specified activities and potentially disturbed. We
estimated 6.5 (median = 6; 95 percent posterior credible interval
(CI):1-14) land-based dens in the area of specified activity in AOGA's
request and within a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer of the activities, annually.
Estimates for different levels of take are presented in Supplemental
Information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-
2026-0694. The distributions of simulated Level A harassments as well
as lethal takes due to den abandonment were non-normal and heavily
skewed, as indicated by markedly different mean and median values. The
heavily skewed nature of these distributions has led to a mean value
that is not representative of the most common model result.
Due to the low probability of one or more lethal takes occurring
either annually (0.13) or in 5-year aggregate (0.45), along with a
median value of 0 for either time period, we do not anticipate the
specified activities will result in lethal take of polar bears. These
estimates do not account for mitigation measures that were incorporated
into AOGA's Request but have benefits that cannot be quantified in the
FWS's modeling approach (e.g., personnel training). Implementation of
these mitigation measures could further reduce the probability of take
and minimize impacts to denning polar bears.
FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Vessel Activities
We used a method similar to that described in FWS Predictive Model
Estimates: Aircraft Activities to estimate the potential effects of
maritime activities on polar bears. As we discussed in Effects of In-
Water Activities on Polar Bears, we do not anticipate harassment of
polar bears due to in-water noise production. However, vessels may
encounter polar bears in the open water or on ice floes, and polar
bears may be harassed by vessel activity. We used the formula that
incorporates spatio-temporally specific encounter rates and temporally
specific harassment rates described in FWS Predictive Model Estimates:
Surface Activities and Supplemental Information to estimate the
potential Level B harassment associated with vessel activity. A
detailed description of the methodology is provided in Supplemental
Information.
Pacific Walrus: All Interactions Estimated Harassment of Walruses
In their Request, AOGA has presented an estimate of potential
walrus harassment that is consistent with methods presented in the past
and at present by FWS. With the low occurrence of walruses in the
Beaufort Sea, and given the mitigation measures incorporated into the
Request, the only anticipated effects from the specified activities in
the Beaufort Sea are short-term behavioral alterations of small numbers
of walruses. Most walrus encounters within the geographic area in the
past 10 years have been of solitary walruses or groups of two. A group
of eight walruses was encountered during barging activity within the
ITR area in 2025. The vessel encountered an additional 11 walruses
along their voyage before entering the ITR area. While highly unlikely
that a group of walruses will be encountered during the proposed
activities, we estimate that no more than 20 walruses annually will be
taken by Level B harassment during the specified activities. Harassment
of no more than 20 walruses may occur from behavioral responses to
vessels, or from behavioral changes in response to noise greater than
160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa created by in-water activities.
Critical Assumptions
In order to conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount
of Level B harassment and Level A harassment, several critical
assumptions were made (for information regarding Critical Assumptions,
see Supplemental Information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket
No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694).
FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Sum of Harassment From All Sources
The FWS predictive modeling methods estimated 91 takes by Level B
harassment of 43 individual polar bears annually. This estimate was
comprised of 85 takes of 37 bears during surface interactions, 1 take
of 1 bear during aircraft activities, 4 takes of 4 bears during vessel
activities, and 1 take of 1 denning bear. When these values were
aggregated over the 5-year period of the ITR, the modeling methods
estimated 422 takes by Level B harassment of 199 polar bears. Of these
takes, 395 takes of 172 polar bears were during surface interactions, 5
takes of 5 bears were during aircraft overflights, 16 takes of 16 bears
were during vessel activities, and 6 takes of 6 bears were during
denning. When aggregating results over the 5-year period, the model
also estimated four takes by Level A harassment of four denning cubs.
We do not anticipate lethal take or Level A harassment would occur
outside of impacts to denning polar bears because the level of sound
and visual stimuli on a polar bear on the surface would not be
significant enough to result in injury or death. Denning polar bears,
however, may be subject to repeated exposures, significant energy
expenditure from den abandonment or departure, or potential impacts to
a cub if the den is abandoned or departed prematurely.
Determinations and Findings
Small Numbers
For our small numbers determination, we consider qualitative
considerations, the Request's estimates of likely incidental take, and
FWS predictive model results to determine whether the number of polar
bears and walruses to be subjected to incidental take are respectively
small relative to the population size of the species or stock. These
considerations are listed below.
1. Within the specified geographical region, the area of Industry
activity is expected to be small relative to the ranges of polar bears
and walruses.
The footprint of the specified activities within the specified
geographic region is small relative to the range of the walrus
population and the SBS polar bear stock. Walruses and SBS polar bears
range well beyond the boundaries of the proposed ITR region. As such,
the ITR region itself represents only a subset of the potential area in
which these species may occur. Thus, the FWS concludes that a small
portion of the walrus population and SBS polar bear stock may be
present in the specified geographic region during the time of the
specified activities.
2. The estimated number of polar bears and walruses that will be
harassed by Industry activity is small relative to the number of
animals in their stocks.
In their Request, AOGA estimates Level B harassment of 24 polar
bears each year, which would be 2.6 percent of a 907-individual stock.
The FWS released a draft stock assessment report (SAR) for the SBS
polar bear population on January 2, 2025 (90 FR 114), in which the SBS
polar bear stock has changed to 819 bears, largely due to a shift in
the border between the SBS and North Beaufort Sea stock. Should this
draft SAR be finalized, 24 bears constitutes 2.9 percent of the SBS
stock. These estimates indicate that the number of polar bears that
would be
[[Page 11255]]
incidentally taken is small relative to the size of the SBS stock.
The FWS predictive model estimates that AOGA's proposed specified
activities in the specified geographic region will incidentally take no
more than 203 polar bears during the 5-year period of this proposed ITR
(see FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Sum of Harassment from All
Sources). Even if we assume all 4 estimated Level A harassments occur
during the same year, the highest total number of animals estimated to
be incidentally taken during any year would be 47, which is 5.2 percent
of the best available estimate of the current SBS stock size of 907
animals (Bromaghin et al. 2015; Atwood et al. 2020; ((47 / 907) x 100
[ap] 5.2 percent)), and 5.7 percent of a 819-individual stock ((47 /
819) x 100 [ap] 5.7 percent)).
As stated previously, walruses are extralimital in the Beaufort
Sea, with nearly the entire walrus population found in the Chukchi and
Bering Seas. Industry monitoring reports have observed no more than 49
walruses between 1995 and 2023, with only a few observed instances of
disturbance to those walruses (AES Alaska 2015; FWS unpublished data).
Between those years, observations were typically of a single or two
animals, often separated by several years. At most, only a tiny
fraction of the walrus population, which is composed of hundreds of
thousands of animals (Beatty et al. 2022), may be found in areas
potentially affected by AOGA's specified activities. We do not
anticipate that seasonal movements of a few walruses into the Beaufort
Sea will significantly increase over the 5-year period of this ITR. The
estimated incidental take of 20 walruses per year from a population
numbering approximately 257,193 animals represents 0.008 percent of
that population ((20 / 257,193) x 100 [ap] 0.008 percent). These
estimates indicate that the number of walruses that would be
incidentally taken is small relative to the size of the walrus
population.
Small Numbers Conclusion
We propose a finding that the specified activities will
incidentally take only small numbers of SBS polar bears and Pacific
walruses.
Negligible Impact
We propose a finding that AOGA's specific activities would result
in a negligible impact to the SBS stock of polar bears. For our
negligible impact determination, we consider the following:
1. The number of polar bears that use the terrestrial habitat of
the North Slope is small in relation to the entire SBS stock. The
distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears indicate that
relatively few polar bears will occur in the specified areas of
activity at any particular time and, therefore, few polar bears are
likely to be affected.
2. Mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts. The applicant
has proposed, and would be required to adopt, monitoring requirements
and mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential impacts of
their operations on polar bears. Den detection surveys for polar bears
and adaptive mitigation and management responses based on real-time
monitoring information will be used to avoid or minimize interactions
with polar bears and, therefore, limit potential disturbance of these
animals.
3. The majority of human-polar bear interactions will result in no
effect or short-term, temporary behavioral changes. When developing
estimates for Level B harassment, the FWS has determined that there is
a 99 percent chance that at least 88 percent of encounters with bears
on the surface in the open water season and 80 percent of encounters
with bears on the surface in the ice season are expected to result in
no significant change in a biologically important behavior, and we do
not consider those interactions to result in a take. The remainder of
encounters are anticipated to result in short-term, temporary changes
in behavior that are indicative of Level B harassment of the animal.
4. Few dens would occur in proximity to Industry activities. Our
denning simulations show that on average six dens are estimated to
occur within 1 mile of the specified activities during each of the next
five denning seasons. This number represents roughly 5 percent of the
approximately 120 SBS polar bear dens that are established each year.
The mitigation measures included in the Request reduce the number of
dens whose occupants are estimated to be disturbed by the specified
activities to 0.9 percent of the land-based dens and 0.45 percent of
all dens in the SBS stock (figure 2, below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR26.004
[[Page 11256]]
Figure 2--Proportion of SBS land-based dens whose occupants are
estimated to experience Level A disturbance each year. Land-based dens
represent roughly half of the SBS maternal polar bear dens established
each year.
5. Estimated Level A harassments will not alter the distribution of
cub survival probabilities for the SBS stock. The FWS predictive model
estimates four cubs may experience Level A harassments as a result of
the specified activities over a period of 5 years. The impact of these
estimated harassment events can be quantified by first evaluating the
estimated survival consequence to individual cubs and then estimating
associated changes in overall survival rates for the stock. Lacking
data regarding individual cub survival, we conduct this analysis using
the metric of litter survival, which has been estimated by relevant
empirical studies. While the metric does not account for partial litter
loss (because a sow observed with one cub in the spring is assumed to
have had an original litter size of one cub), it also cannot account
for natural litter sizes of zero (because a sow observed with no cubs
in spring is assumed to have lost a litter). Because this metric
represents the best available information, and because it is not biased
in only one direction, we feel it is the most appropriate available
metric to reflect potential impacts to cub survival.
The denning analysis model allows us to compare the probability of
litter survival using both the undisturbed and disturbed (if
applicable) emergence and departure dates of simulated dens. With this
information, we can estimate the average decrease in survival
probability that can be attributed to simulated Industry disturbance.
The mean probability of litter survival for dens experiencing Level A
harassment decreased 16 percent after simulated disturbance (pre-
disturbance 85.5 percent, post-disturbance 69.2 percent).
When examining the potential impact of four Level A harassment
events at the stock level, we consider the low percentage of SBS dens
with cubs that the model anticipates will experience Level A
harassment. Given that 0.9 percent of land-based dens within the SBS
stock are anticipated to experience Level A harassment in any year, the
16 percent decrease does not alter or shift the overall survival
probability distribution for the SBS stock (figure 3, below). Further,
if we examine the distribution of survival rates for the entire land-
based SBS stock, counting for potential decrease in survival due to
both potential Level A harassment and potential lethal take via den
abandonment (which is not anticipated), we see no more than a minor
change in distribution, as is illustrated by the similarities of the
graphs in figure 3.
Applying the undisturbed mean survival rate to the estimated number
of litters produced annually by sows in SBS land-based dens, we expect
the average estimated number of litters with at least one surviving cub
in the spring to be 50.7 percent, which we round to 51 litters. This
estimate decreases to 50.5 percent when accounting for disturbance,
which we also round to 51 litters, indicating the effect of disturbance
at the population level is statistically insignificant. Further, it is
important to acknowledge that roughly half of SBS polar bear dens are
not found on land, but rather on the sea ice, and would not overlap
spatially with the specified activities.
[[Page 11257]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR26.005
Figure 3--Litter survival probability distributions for the annual
land-based dens of the SBS polar bear stock. The X-axes of these graphs
depict the simulated probability that one or more cubs from a litter
will be alive in the spring, and the Y-axes of these graphs depict the
relative occurrence of the survival probabilities in our simulations.
(Top plot: Survival probabilities simulated with no disturbance from
Industry. Bottom plot: Survival probabilities simulated with estimated
Level A harassment from Industry activities.)
6. Lethal take via den abandonment is rare within the Southern
Beaufort Sea stock. Records of den abandonment in the oilfield are
rare--the FWS has only one account of potential den abandonment within
the 13 case studies used to develop early denning period disturbance
rates. Applying the denning model, the greatest annual simulated
probability of lethal take throughout the proposed ITR is 0.13. The
aggregated probability of potential lethal take over a 5-year period is
0.45. The median number of lethal takes in both the annual and 5-year
aggregated modeling outputs was zero. These results, coupled with the
lack of observed den abandonment, supports our finding that lethal take
due to sow abandonment of the den and litter during the early denning
period is unlikely.
7. We do not anticipate that loss of a cub or litter will adversely
affect annual recruitment rates at the population level. Under the
proposed ITR, anticipated incidental Level A harassment only involves
cubs during the denning period. Impacts to denning females, the
demographic group most important to annual recruitment, would only
involve take by Level B harassment. Therefore, the immediate number of
potentially available reproductive females that would contribute to
recruitment for the SBS stock would remain unaffected if a den
disturbance were to result in the mortality of the cubs. If a den
disturbance were to result in the mortality of the entire litter, the
female would be available to breed during the next mating season and
produce another litter during the next denning season.
Cubs inherently cannot contribute to annual rates of recruitment
until they have reached sexual maturity because in wildlife biology the
concept of recruitment speaks to individuals entering the reproductive
population. Further, while adult male bears would contribute to the
overall number of individuals in the population, they do not contribute
significantly to annual
[[Page 11258]]
rates of recruitment. While a very small decrease in the number of
males in a breeding population may be a concern if the stock was at
risk of inbreeding depression or Allee effects (e.g., decrease in
population size or individual fitness in reponse to low population
density), this is not the case in the SBS stock. Female cubs have the
opportunity to reach sexual maturity and contribute to annual
recruitment; however, natural rates of survival fluctuate in the SBS
stock. Death of one female cub less than once per year is within the
natural variability found within the SBS stock and cannot be reasonably
expected to cause an adverse impact on annual rates of recruitment.
Based on the low percentage of SBS stock polar bears potentially
being removed from the stock even if den disturbance were to result in
the mortality of the cubs, and the expectation that the number of
potentially available reproductive females that would contribute to
recruitment would be unaffected by den disturbance, the FWS does not
anticipate that the loss of a cub or litter would adversely affect
annual recruitment rates at the population level for the SBS stock of
polar bears.
We reviewed the effects of Industry activities on polar bears,
including impacts from surface interactions, aircraft overflights,
marine vessel traffic, and den disturbance. Based on our review of
these potential impacts, past monitoring reports, and the biology and
natural history of polar bears, we conclude that any incidental take
reasonably likely to occur as a result of specified activities would be
limited to short-term behavioral disturbances and temporary reductions
in fitness that would not affect the rates of recruitment or survival
for the SBS stock of polar bears.
The FWS has analyzed the potential impact of the proposed taking in
light of other factors affecting SBS polar bears, including subsistence
harvest and other human-caused removals as well as climate change.
Climate change is considered as the overall driver of effects that
could alter polar bear habitat and behavior. The FWS is currently
involved in research to understand how climate change may affect polar
bears. As we gain a better understanding of climate change effects, we
will incorporate the information in future authorizations. While
climate change and other ongoing factors pose significant challenges to
SBS polar bears, we do not expect them to influence the degree of
impacts (i.e., short-term behavioral responses and temporary reductions
in fitness) resulting from the specified activities or incidental
harassment to be authorized over the next 5 years under the proposed
incidental take regulations.
Our analysis indicates that the impacts of these specified
activities over 5 years cannot be reasonably expected to, and are not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the SBS stock of polar bears
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Similarly,
the estimated impacts described in AOGA's Request, which are lower than
those of the FWS predictive model, cannot be reasonably expected to,
and are not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the SBS stock of
polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
We preliminarily find that the total of the taking will have no more
than a negligible impact on the SBS stock of polar bears.
Impact on Subsistence Use
Based on information from past community consultations, as well as
our analysis of hunting area locations--which did not identify any
overlap between hunting areas and the specified activities--and the
best scientific information available--including monitoring data from
similar activities, we proposea preliminary finding that take caused by
the specified activities in the specified geographic region will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of polar bears
or walruses for taking for Alaska Native subsistence uses during the
specified timeframe.
While polar bears and walruses represent a small portion, in terms
of the number of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the
Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik communities, their harvest is
important to Alaska Natives. However, the majority of project
activities are within an established industrial area where harvest is
not conducted. Walrus harvest from Nuiqsut and Kaktovik is
opportunistic, and none of the walrus harvests for Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut,
or Kaktovik from 2014 through 2024 have occurred within the area of
specified activities. The FWS has not received any reports and is not
aware of information that indicates that polar bears or Pacific
walruses are being or will be deterred from hunting areas or impacted
in any way that diminishes their availability for Alaska Native
subsistence use by the specified activities. In their Request, AOGA has
committed to notify the Village of Kaktovik and Village of Nuiqsut of
the planned activities and document any discussions of potential
conflict. LOA holders would contact Alaska Native subsistence
communities that may be affected by their activities to discuss
potential conflicts caused by location, timing, and methods of the
specified activities. They would also make reasonable efforts to ensure
that activities do not interfere with subsistence hunting and that
adverse effects on the availability of polar bears are minimized. The
FWS is not aware of any concerns having been voiced by the Alaska
Native communities regarding the specified activities limiting
availability of polar bears for subsistence uses. However, should such
a concern be voiced, POCs would identify measures to minimize any
adverse effects and these measures will be implemented. Any POCs would
further ensure that the specified activities will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock
for Alaska Native subsistence uses. POCs provide the procedures
addressing how LOA holders will work with the affected Alaska Native
communities and what actions will be taken to avoid interference with
subsistence hunting of polar bears or walruses, as warranted.
Least Practicable Adverse Impact
ITRs must set forth, among other things, means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its
habitat. We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of
mitigation measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the
specified activities; the best available scientific information; and
monitoring data during industry activities in the specified geographic
region. The FWS did not identify any additional (i.e., not already
included in the Request), practicable mitigation measures to decrease
the potential impact of the specified activities on walruses or their
habitat, but we propose two additional mitigation measures to decrease
the potential impact of the specified activities on polar bears.
The first measure is the addition of a third AIR survey of polar
bear denning habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of onshore winter activities
in the high-density denning zone. Under this measure, the FWS proposes
to require polar bear denning habitat in project areas located in high
denning density zones be AIR surveyed three times, denning habitat in
project areas in moderate denning density zones be AIR surveyed twice,
and denning habitat in project areas anywhere outside of either the
moderate or high denning density zones be AIR surveyed once. When
either one or two AIR surveys are needed, the first survey
[[Page 11259]]
would be flown between November 25 and December 25 and the second
survey would occur between December 15 and January 15. In areas where
three surveys are required, the additional survey would occur between
December 5 and December 31. A minimum of 24 hours would be required
between completion of the previous AIR survey and beginning a new AIR
survey. The AIR surveys would be flown between an altitude of 244 m
(800 ft) and 457 m (1,500 ft) using a fixed-wing aircraft originating
from the Deadhorse airport and Alpine.
The second measure is a larger 1.6 km (1 mi) mitigation zone
surrounding polar bear sows and their cub(s) at den sites. Under this
measure, LOA holders would consult with the FWS on any activities that
need to occur within a mile of a den location. The FWS would work
cooperatively with LOA holders to identify mitigation measures, such as
decreased and slowed traffic, personnel education, and increased
monitoring, to decrease the potential impact of activities in the
mitigation zone on polar bears.
We propose a finding that the mitigation measures already included
within AOGA's Request will ensure the least practicable adverse impact
on walruses and their habitat, and that the mitigation measures already
included within AOGA's request and the two additional measures
described above will ensure the least practicable adverse impact on
polar bears and their habitat.
A number of mitigation measures were considered but determined to
be not practicable. These measures are listed below:
<bullet> Require use of helicopters for AIR surveys--Use of
helicopters to survey active polar bear dens might lead to greater
levels of disturbance and take compared to fixed-wing aircraft. This
statement is supported by greater harassment rates for helicopter
overflights compared to fixed-wing overflights determined in the
aircraft take estimate analysis. Additionally, there is no published
data to indicate increased den detection efficacy of helicopter AIR.
<bullet> Require optimal weather conditions for AIR surveys--
Appropriate weather conditions for AIR surveys are incorporated into
the Request and an FWS-proposed mitigation measure. Additional
restrictions would not be practicable for the specified activities due
to the available timeframe to complete AIR surveys.
<bullet> Ground all flights if they must fly below 457 m (1,500
ft)--Requiring all aircraft to maintain an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft)
at all times is not practicable as some operations may require flying
below 457 m (1,500 ft) to perform necessary inspections or maintain
safety of flight crew. Aircraft are required to fly above 457 m (1,500
ft) at all times within 805 m (0.5 mi) of an observed polar bear or
walrus unless there is an emergency.
<bullet> Require speed restrictions for all aircraft operations--
Requiring all aircraft to operate below a specific speed limit is not
practicable as some operations may require speeds above the specified
speed limit to maintain safety of the flight crew during various
weather conditions. Additionally, aircraft operating at lower speeds
may increase the duration of impact and potentially result in greater
levels of disturbance to polar bears or walruses.
<bullet> Spatial and temporal restrictions on surface activity--
Some spatial and temporal restrictions of operations were included in
AOGA's Request; however, additional restrictions would not be
practicable for the specified activities based on other regulatory and
safety requirements, and the need to meet project objectives such as
acquiring sufficient data.
<bullet> Operational exclusion zone around all known polar bear
denning habitat--A 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone around all
known polar bear denning habitat is not practicable as much of AOGA's
specified survey area occurs within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat;
thus, to exclude all areas within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat
would preclude many project activities from occurring.
<bullet> Prohibit driving over high relief areas, embankments, or
stream and river crossings--In their request AOGA has committed to
avoid operating in potential den locations. This includes providing
crews GPS displays that highlight areas precluded from surface travel,
training crews to recognize denning habitat and signs of animal
activity, and scouting ahead with smaller/lighter equipment to evaluate
travel routes before larger equipment arrives. Most travel will avoid
embankments and steep slopes that polar bears utilize for denning, but
scouting activity helps to further identify areas to avoid. To
completely avoid these types of areas would likely cause personnel to
drive further away from established operational areas and unnecessarily
create additional safety concerns. Furthermore, other mitigation
measures to minimize impact to denning habitats are included and will
minimize the risk imposed by driving over high relief areas,
embankments, or stream and river crossings. Lastly, the probability of
a den being run over by equipment during the specified activities is
exceedingly low each year of the proposed ITR, and this probability
will be further mitigated by AIR surveys at the beginning of the
specified activities to detect dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the
activities.
<bullet> Use of a broader definition of ``denning habitat'' for
operational offsets--No data are available to support broadening the
defining features of denning habitat beyond that established by the
U.S. Geological Survey.
<bullet> Prohibit activities within designated critical habitat for
polar bears--Critical habitat for polar bears must be considered during
the specified activities; however, complete prohibition is not
practicable due to the large spatial extent of critical habitat and
project objectives.
<bullet> Establish corridors for female and cub transit to the sea
ice--As no data support the existence of natural transit corridors to
the sea ice, establishment of corridors in the ITR area would be highly
speculative. Therefore, no mitigative benefit would be realized by
their establishment.
<bullet> Require third-party neutral marine mammal observers--AOGA
has committed to conducting polar bear training that meets FWS
standards and will use bear guards to monitor for polar bears during
project activities. These bear guards will be fully incentivized to
diligently monitor for polar bears given inherent safety
considerations.
<bullet> Require all activities to immediately cease if a polar
bear or walrus is injured or killed until an investigation is
completed--The FWS has incorporated into this proposed rule reporting
requirements for all polar bear and walrus interactions. While
immediately ceasing all activities may aid in any subsequent
investigation, doing so may not be practicable or safe in certain
circumstances and, thus, will not be mandated.
<bullet> Require use of den detection dogs--Requiring scent-trained
dogs to detect dens across the broader ITR area is not practicable or
safe due to the large spatial extent that would need to be surveyed.
Such a wide-scale survey may also require additional transit vehicles
and accommodations, which could increase disturbance to polar bears.
However, in their application, AOGA considered use of scent-trained
dogs as a mitigation action when hotspots are identified, stating that
their best use is one-time verification at a specific site (rather than
routine monitoring or surveying large areas). This site-specific use,
which is different than potential wide-spread surveys, may be used as
deemed appropriate.
[[Page 11260]]
<bullet> Construct safety gates, fences, and enclosures to prevent
polar bears from accessing facilities--Constructing safety gates,
fences, and enclosures to prevent polar bears from accessing all
facilities is not practicable due to the short-term and relatively
mobile project activities and temporary facilities. AOGA will place
skirting around elevated facilities to prevent polar bears from
accessing these areas.
<bullet> Require the use of handheld or vehicle-mounted forward-
looking infrared equipment--The efficacy rates for AIR have been found
to be four times more likely to detect dens versus ground-based
forward-looking infrared (handheld or vehicle-mounted) due to impacts
of blowing snow on detection. AOGA has previously incorporated into
their mitigation measures the use of handheld or vehicle-mounted
forward-looking infrared when transiting rivers occurring in suitable
denning habitat, but it is not practicable to use the equipment during
all transit.
<bullet> Temporal restrictions after July 18--While AOGA has
committed to prioritizing cleanup in coastal areas first to complete
them prior to July 18, the overall timing of cleanup activities is
dependent upon snow-free conditions, which vary yearly and may not
occur before July 18.
Monitoring and Reporting
The purpose of monitoring requirements is to assess the effects of
the specified activities on polar bears and walruses, verify ITR
compliance, detect any unanticipated effects on the species or stock,
and ensure take will not have more than a negligible impact on species
or stocks. Monitoring includes documenting when and how polar bears and
walruses are observed, the number of polar bears or walruses, and their
behavior during the observation. To the extent possible, personnel that
encounter polar bears or walruses will record group size, age, sex,
behavior, duration of observation, and closest approach to human
activity. The AOGA would report all observations of polar bears or
walruses. This information allows the FWS to measure encounter rates,
examine trends in polar bear and walrus activity and distribution in
the industrial areas, and estimate the number of polar bears or
walruses potentially affected by industrial activities.
The FWS would provide AOGA with the most recent and up-to-date
Polar Bear and/or Walrus Observation Form in which to record
observations of polar bears or walruses. Observations must be reported
to the FWS's Marine Mammals Management Office within 48 hours of the
observation and submitted to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b3d2c6c0436363604293e2b34292f281b3d2c28753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0c6d797ffcdcdcdffd2c5d0cfd2d4d3e0c6d7d38ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>. Details on
monitoring guidelines and reporting requirements can be read below in
the proposed regulation promulgation portion of this document in
proposed Sec. 18.127 Monitoring and Sec. 18.128 Reporting
Requirements.
Request for Public Comments
If you wish to comment on these proposed regulations or the
associated draft environmental assessment, you may submit your comments
by any of the methods described in ADDRESSES. Please identify if you
are commenting on the proposed regulations, the draft environmental
assessment, or both, make your comments as specific as possible,
confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and
explain the reason for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your
comments should reference the specific section or paragraph that you
are addressing. The FWS will consider all comments that are received by
the close of the comment period (see DATES).
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The FWS has prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance
with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The FWS has preliminarily
concluded that the proposed action of issuing an ITR would not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and, thus,
preparation of an environmental impact statement for this incidental
take regulation is not required by section 102(2) of NEPA or its
implementing regulations. We are accepting comments on the draft
environmental assessment as specified above in DATES and ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all
Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or
endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Prior to finalizing this ITR, if warranted, the FWS
will complete intra-Service consultation under section 7 of the ESA on
our proposed issuance of an ITR.
Government-to-Government Consultation
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a
Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native
Tribes and organizations in developing programs for healthy ecosystems.
We seek their full and meaningful participation in evaluating and
addressing conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal
to remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture and to make information
available to Alaska Natives. Our efforts are guided by E.O. 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments,'' 512
DM 5, ``Procedures for Consultation with Indian Tribes,'' 512 DM 6,
``Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act Corporations,'' 510 FW 1, ``The Service's Native
American Policy,'' and 510 FW 2, ``The Service's Alaska Native
Relations Policy.''
The FWS has evaluated possible effects of the specified activities
on federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and organizations. The
applicant has presented a communication process, culminating in POCs if
needed, with the Alaska Native organizations and communities most
likely to be affected by their work. The FWS does not anticipate
impacts to Alaska Native Tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
corporations and does not anticipate requesting consultation; however,
we invite continued discussion, either about the project and its
impacts or about our coordination and information exchange throughout
the ITR/POC process.
Regulatory Planning and Review--E.O.s 12866 and 13563
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has
determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the
public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent
with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that
regulations must be based on the best available science and that the
rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. The FWS has developed this rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
OIRA bases its determination of significance upon the following
four
[[Page 11261]]
criteria: (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100
million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government;
(b) whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions; (c) whether the rule will materially affect
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients; (d) whether the rule raises novel
legal or policy issues.
Expenses will be related to, but not necessarily limited to: the
development of requests for LOAs; monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting activities conducted during year-round oil and gas industry
activities; development of activity- and species-specific marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plans; and coordination with Alaska Natives
to minimize effects of operations on subsistence hunting.
Realistically, costs of compliance with this proposed rule, if
finalized, are minimal in comparison to those related to actual oil and
gas industry activities. The actual costs to develop the petition for
promulgation of regulations and LOA requests fall short of the ``major
rule'' threshold that would require preparation of a regulatory impact
analysis.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The FWS has determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, is
not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. The proposed rule is also not likely to
result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, or government agencies or have significant adverse effects
on competition, employment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability
of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic or export markets.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The FWS has determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The AOGA and their affiliated parties conducting oil and gas industry
activities in the Beaufort Sea and North Slope of Alaska are the only
entities subject to this proposed ITR. Therefore, neither a regulatory
flexibility analysis nor a small entity compliance guide is required.
Takings Implications
This proposed rule, if finalized, does not have takings
implications under E.O. 12630 because the ITR process is voluntary and
serves to exempt applicants from certain civil liability under the MMPA
as long as they operate in compliance with the terms of their LOAs.
Therefore, a takings implications assessment is not required.
Federalism Effects
This proposed rule, if finalized, does not contain policies with
federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a
federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. The MMPA gives the FWS the
authority and responsibility to protect polar bears and walruses.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), this proposed rule, if finalized, will not ``significantly or
uniquely'' affect small governments. A small government agency plan is
not required. The FWS has determined and certifies pursuant to the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that this rulemaking will not impose a
cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities. This rule, if finalized, will not
produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e.,
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
Civil Justice Reform
The Departmental Solicitor's Office has determined that this
proposed rule, if finalized, will not unduly burden the judicial system
and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new collection of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). All information collections under the PRA require OMB
approval. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. OMB previously approved the information
collection requirements associated with incidental take in the
identified subparts and assigned the following control numbers:
<bullet> 1018-0070, Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During Specified
Activities (50 CFR 18.27 and 50 CFR 18, Subpart J) (expires 08/31/
2028), and
<bullet> 1018-0203, Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During Specified
Activities (50 CFR 18.27 and 50 CFR 18, Subpart L) (expires 08/31/
2028).
Energy Effects
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy
effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule provides
exceptions from the MMPA's taking prohibitions for entities engaged in
specified oil and gas industry activities in the specified geographic
region. By providing certainty regarding compliance with the MMPA, this
proposed rule will have a positive effect on the oil and gas industry
activities. Although the proposed rule requires an applicant to take a
number of actions, these actions have been undertaken by oil and gas
industry activities for many years as part of similar past regulations.
Therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use and does not constitute a
significant energy action. No statement of energy effects is required.
Clarity of This Proposed Rule
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must: (a) Be logically organized; (b)
use the active voice to address readers directly; (c) use common,
everyday words and clear language rather than jargon; (d) be divided
into short sections and sentences; and (e) use lists and tables
wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the
sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
References
For a list of the references cited in this proposed rule, see
Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694, available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
[[Page 11262]]
Signing Authority
Kevin Lilly, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, approved this action on
March 5, 2026, for publication. On March 5, 2026, Kevin Lilly
authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically and
submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an
official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FWS proposes to
amend part 18, subchapter B of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below.
PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS
0
1. The authority citation of 50 CFR part 18 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
2. Amend part 18 by revising and republishing subpart J to read as
follows:
Subpart J--Nonlethal Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas
Exploration, Development, and Production Activities in the Beaufort Sea
and Adjacent Northern Coast of Alaska
18.119 Specified activities covered by this subpart.
18.120 Specified geographic region where this subpart applies.
18.121 Dates this subpart is in effect.
18.122 Procedure to obtain a letter of authorization (LOA).
18.123 How the FWS will evaluate a request for an LOA.
18.124 Authorized take allowed under an LOA.
18.125 Prohibited take under an LOA.
18.126 Mitigation.
18.127 Monitoring.
18.128 Reporting requirements.
18.129 Information collection requirements.
Sec. 18.119 Specified activities covered by this subpart.
Regulations in this subpart apply to the incidental, but not
intentional, take of small numbers of polar bears by certain U.S.
citizens while engaged in oil and gas exploration, development, and
production activities in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast
of Alaska. A letter of authorization (LOA) from the FWS is required to
authorize incidental take that may occur during the specified
activities. The entities described in Sec. 18.122 may request an LOA
pursuant to the regulations in this subpart.
Sec. 18.120 Specified geographic region where this subpart applies.
This subpart applies to the specified geographic region that
encompasses all Beaufort Sea waters east of a north-south line through
Point Barrow, Alaska (latitude 71.39139[deg] N, longitude 156.475[deg]
W; Board on Geographic Names (BGN) 1944), and 80.5 kilometer (km) (50
miles (mi)) north of Point Barrow, including Alaska State waters and
Outer Continental Shelf waters, and east of that line to the Canadian
border.
(a) The offshore boundary of the Beaufort Sea incidental take
regulations (ITR) region extends 80.5 km (50 mi) offshore. The onshore
region is the same north/south line at Utqiagvik, 40.2 km (25 mi)
inland and east to the Canning River.
(b) Lands and waters within the exterior boundaries of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge are not included in the Beaufort Sea ITR
region. Figure 1 shows the area where this subpart applies.
Figure 1 to Sec. 18.120--Map of the Beaufort Sea ITR region
[[Page 11263]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR26.006
Sec. 18.121 Dates this subpart is in effect.
The regulations in this subpart are effective from August 6, 2026,
through August 5, 2031, for year-round oil and gas exploration,
development, and production.
Sec. 18.122 Procedure to obtain a letter of authorization (LOA).
(a) An applicant must be a U.S. citizen as defined in Sec.
18.27(c) and among:
(1) Those entities specified in the request for this rule as set
forth in paragraph (b) of this section;
(2) Any of their corporate affiliates; or
(3) Any of their respective contractors, subcontractors, partners,
owners, co-lessees, designees, or successors-in-interest.
(b) The entities specified in the request (as modified) are the
Alaska Oil and Gas Association, which includes Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company; BlueCrest Energy, Inc.; Chevron Corporation; ConocoPhillips
Alaska, Inc. (CPAI); ExxonMobil Alaska Production, Inc. (ExxonMobil);
Finnex; Furie Operating Alaska, LLC; Glacier Oil and Gas Corporation
(Glacier); Hilcorp Alaska, LLC and Hilcorp North Slope, LLC (Hilcorp);
Marathon Petroleum Corporation; Petro Star Inc.; Repsol; Santos; Shell
Exploration and Production Company (Shell); APA Corporation; and 8 Star
Alaska, LLC (a non-member company).
(c) Request for LOAs must be submitted to the Service's Alaska
Region Marine Mammals Management (MMM) Office, MS 341, 1011 East Tudor
Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, at least 90 days prior to the start of
the activity.
(d) The request for an LOA must comply with the requirements set
forth in Sec. Sec. 18.126 through 18.128 of this subpart and must
include the following information:
(1) An operational plan that describes in detail the activity
(e.g., type of project, methods, and types and numbers of equipment and
personnel), the dates and duration of the activity, and the specific
locations affected by the activity;
(2) A site-specific Pacific walrus and polar bear safety,
awareness, and interaction plan; the plan for each activity and
location will detail the policies and procedures that will provide for
the safety and awareness of personnel, avoid interactions with Pacific
walruses and polar bears, and minimize impacts to these animals;
(3) A site-specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to
monitor and mitigate the effects of the activity on Pacific walruses
and polar bears; and
(4) If necessary, a plan of cooperation (POC) to mitigate potential
conflicts between the activity and subsistence hunting.
(i) In a POC, applicants must provide documentation of
communication with potentially affected subsistence communities along
the Beaufort Sea coast (i.e., Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Utqigvik) and
appropriate subsistence user organizations (i.e., the Alaska
[[Page 11264]]
Nannut Co-Management Council, the Eskimo Walrus Commission, or North
Slope Borough) to discuss the location, timing, and methods of
activities and identify and mitigate any potential conflicts with
subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting activities. Applicants must
specifically inquire of relevant communities and organizations if the
activity will interfere with the availability of Pacific walruses and/
or polar bears for the subsistence use of those groups.
(ii) Documentation must include a summary of any concerns
identified by community members and hunter organizations and the
applicant's responses to identified concerns.
Sec. 18.123 How the FWS will evaluate a request for an LOA.
We will evaluate each request for an LOA based on the specific
activity and the specific geographic location. We will determine
whether the level of activity identified in the request exceeds that
analyzed by us in considering the number of animals estimated to be
taken and evaluating whether there will be a negligible impact on the
species or stock and an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of the species or stock for subsistence uses. If the level of the
operator's activity is within the level of activity already analyzed by
us, we will grant the authorization. If the level of activity is
greater, we may request further information and we will reevaluate our
findings to determine if those findings continue to be appropriate
based on the combined estimated take of the greater level of activity
that the applicant has requested and all other activities proposed
during the time of the activities in the LOA request. Depending on the
results of the evaluation, we may grant the authorization, add further
conditions, or deny the authorization.
Sec. 18.124 Authorized take allowed under an LOA.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations
in this subpart, the applicant must apply for and obtain an LOA in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 18.27(f) and 18.122.
(b) An LOA issued under this subpart allows for the incidental
take, as defined under section 3 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1362), of Pacific walruses and/or polar bears during
activities specified in Sec. 18.119 within the Beaufort Sea ITR region
described in Sec. 18.120.
(c) Each LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental take;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and the availability of the
species for subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
Sec. 18.125 Prohibited take under an LOA.
(a) Any incidental take that fails to comply with the regulations
in this subpart or with the terms and conditions of an LOA remain
prohibited. The regulations in this subpart do not authorize any
intentional take.
(b) If specified activities cause unauthorized take, the holder of
an LOA must:
(1) Cease activities immediately (or reduce activities to the
minimum level necessary to maintain safety) and report the details of
the incident within 48 hours to the FWS MMM office at 1-907-786-3800
(business hours); and
(2) Suspend further activities until the FWS has reviewed the
circumstances, determined whether additional mitigation measures are
necessary to avoid further unauthorized taking, and notified the LOA
holder that project activities may resume.
Sec. 18.126 Mitigation.
(a) Mitigation measures for all LOAs. Holders of an LOA must
implement policies and procedures to conduct activities in a manner
that effects the least practicable adverse impact on Pacific walruses
and/or polar bears, their habitat, and the availability of these marine
mammals for subsistence uses. Adaptive management practices, such as
temporal or spatial activity restrictions in response to the presence
of marine mammals in a particular place or time or the occurrence of
Pacific walruses and/or polar bears engaged in a biologically
significant activity (e.g., resting, feeding, denning, or nursing,
among others), must be used to avoid interactions with and minimize
impacts to these animals and their availability for subsistence uses.
All holders of an LOA must:
(1) Cooperate with the FWS's MMM Office and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor and mitigate the impacts
of activities on Pacific walruses and polar bears. Where information is
insufficient to evaluate the potential effects of activities on
walruses, polar bears, and the subsistence use of this species, holders
of an LOA may be required to participate in joint monitoring and/or
research efforts to address these information needs and ensure the
least practicable adverse impact to these resources.
(2) Designate trained and qualified personnel to monitor for the
presence of Pacific walruses and polar bears, initiate mitigation
measures, and monitor, record, and report the effects of the activities
on Pacific walruses and/or polar bears.
(3) Have an approved Pacific walrus and polar bear safety,
awareness, and interaction plan on file with the FWS's MMM Office and
onsite and provide polar bear awareness training to certain personnel
prior to their participation in the activities. Interaction plans must
include:
(i) The type of activity and where and when the activity will occur
(i.e., a summary of the plan of operation);
(ii) A food, waste, and other ``bear attractants'' management plan;
(iii) Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
(iv) Site-specific walrus and polar bear interaction risk
evaluation and mitigation measures:
(v) Walrus and polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
(vi) Walrus and polar bear observation and reporting procedures.
(b) Mitigation measures for onshore activities. Holders of an LOA
must undertake the following activities to limit disturbance around
known polar bear dens:
(1) Attempt to locate polar bear dens. Holders of an LOA seeking to
carry out onshore activities during the denning season (November-April)
must conduct surveys for occupied polar bear dens in all denning
habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of specified activities using AIR imagery.
The applicant must conduct at least three such surveys in high density
denning zones, at least two such surveys in moderate density denning
zones, and at least one such survey in other onshore project areas.
(i) Where one or two AIR surveys are required, the first survey
must occur between November 25 and December 25 and the second survey
must occur between December 15 and January 15. Where three surveys are
required, the additional survey must occur between December 5 and
December 31. At least 24 hours must pass between the completion of a
required survey and the beginning of a subsequent required survey.
(ii) AIR surveys will be conducted during darkness or civil
twilight and not during daylight hours. Ideal environmental conditions
during surveys would be clear, calm, and cold; AIR detection should not
be attempted if there is blowing snow, any form of precipitation, or
other sources of
[[Page 11265]]
airborne moisture. Flight crews will record and report environmental
parameters including air temperatures, dew point, wind speed and
direction, cloud ceiling, and percent humidity, and a flight log will
be provided to the FWS within 48 hours of the flight.
(iii) A scientist experienced in interpreting AIR imagery will be
on board the survey aircraft to analyze the AIR data in real-time. The
data (infrared video) will be made available for viewing by the FWS
immediately upon return of the survey aircraft to the base of
operations.
(iv) All observed or suspected polar bear dens must be reported to
the FWS prior to the initiation of activities.
(2) Observe 1-mile operational mitigation zone around known polar
bear dens. Operators must observe a 1.6-km (1-mi) operational
mitigation zone around all known or suspected polar bear dens during
the denning season (November-April, or until the female and cubs leave
the areas). Should previously unknown occupied dens be discovered
within 1 mile of activities, the FWS must be contacted for guidance.
The FWS will evaluate these instances on a case-by-case basis to
determine the appropriate action. Potential actions may range from
cessation or modification of work to conducting additional monitoring,
and the holder of the LOA must comply with any additional measures
specified.
(3) Use the den habitat map developed by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). To determine the areas that require surveys, operators must use
the map of suitable coastal polar bear denning habitat developed by
USGS: <a href="https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/search?otherKeyword=%5B%22Denning%20habitat%22">https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/search?otherKeyword=%5B%22Denning%20habitat%22</a>%5. Doing so will inform
LOA holders of the potential locations of polar bear dens for
consideration when conducting activities in the coastal areas.
(4) Observe polar bear den restrictions. Restrict the timing of the
activity to limit disturbance around known or suspected dens.
(5) Observe den emergence restrictions. If a female and cubs of the
year are observed during the den emergence period (February-April), LOA
holders must immediately halt or delay any activities that could impede
the polar bears' path to the sea ice. LOA holders must also notify the
FWS and personnel conducting operations between the female and cubs and
the coastline.
(c) Mitigation measures for operational and support vessels.
Holders of an LOA must implement the following measures:
(1) Operational and support vessels must be staffed with dedicated
marine mammal observers to alert crew of the presence of walruses and
polar bears and initiate adaptive mitigation responses.
(2) At all times, vessels must maintain the maximum distance
possible from concentrations of walruses or polar bears. Under no
circumstances, other than an emergency, should any vessel approach
within an 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of walruses or polar bears observed on
land or ice.
(3) Vessel operators must take every precaution to avoid harassment
of concentrations of feeding walruses when a vessel is operating near
these animals. Vessels should reduce speed and maintain a minimum 805-m
(0.5-mi) operational exclusion zone around feeding walrus groups.
Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate members of a
group of walruses (i.e., greater than two) from other members of the
group. When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops,
vessels should adjust speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of
injury to walruses.
(4) All vessels must avoid areas of active or anticipated walrus or
polar bear subsistence hunting activity as determined through community
consultations.
(5) In association with marine activities, we may require trained
marine mammal monitors on the site of the activity or onboard ships,
aircraft, icebreakers, or other support vessels or vehicles to monitor
the impacts of oil and gas industry activity on polar bear and Pacific
walruses.
(d) Mitigation measures for aircraft to avoid disturbance. Holders
of an LOA must implement the following measures:
(1) Follow aircraft elevation and flight path restrictions.
Operators of support aircraft shall, at all times, conduct their
activities at the maximum distance practicable from concentrations of
walruses or polar bears.
(i) Aircraft operations within the project area will maintain a
minimum altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) above ground level when safe and
operationally possible.
(ii) Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, will aircraft
operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within 805 m (0.5
mi) of walruses or polar bears observed on ice or land measured in a
straight line between the polar bear and the ground directly underneath
the aircraft. Helicopters may not hover or circle above such areas or
within 805 m (0.5 mi) of such areas. Aircraft may be operated below 457
m (1,500 ft) only when necessary to avoid adverse weather conditions or
when operationally necessary. However, when weather conditions
necessitate operation of aircraft at altitudes below 457 m (1,500 ft),
the operator must avoid areas of known walrus and polar bear
concentrations and should take precautions to avoid flying directly
over or within 805 m (0.5 mi) of these areas.
(iii) Operators must plan all aircraft routes to minimize any
potential conflict with active or anticipated walrus or polar bear
hunting activity as determined through community consultations.
(2) Follow aircraft landing and take-off spatial restrictions.
Aircraft will not land within 805 m (0.5 mi) of walruses or polar
bears. If a polar bear is observed while the aircraft is grounded in
remote areas, personnel will board the aircraft and leave the area. The
aircraft operator will also avoid flying over the polar bear if
possible. Operators should avoid making any sudden maneuvers,
especially when traveling at lower altitudes, even if such maneuvers
are intended to avoid walruses or polar bears. If a polar bear is
observed within the landing zone or work area, operators should travel
away from the site and slowly increase altitude to 457 m (1,500 ft) or
a level that is safest and viable given current traveling conditions.
Aircraft may not be operated in such a way as to separate individual
walruses or polar bears from a group (i.e., two or more animals).
(e) Mitigation measures for the subsistence use of walruses and
polar bears. Holders of an LOA must conduct their activities in a
manner that, to the greatest extent practicable, minimizes adverse
impacts on the availability of Pacific walruses and polar bears for
subsistence uses.
(1) Community consultation. Prior to receipt of an LOA, applicants
must consult with potentially affected communities and appropriate
subsistence user organizations to discuss potential conflicts with
subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting caused by the location,
timing, and methods of operations and support activities. If community
concerns suggest that the activities may have an adverse impact on the
subsistence uses of these species, the applicant must address conflict
avoidance issues through a POC as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section.
(2) Plan of cooperation. Based on community consultations, the
holder of an LOA will be required to modify their POC as needed if
directed by the FWS.
(i) The POC must include a description of the procedures by which
[[Page 11266]]
the holder of the LOA will work and consult with potentially affected
subsistence hunters and a description of specific measures that have
been or will be taken to avoid or minimize interference with
subsistence hunting of walruses and polar bears and to ensure continued
availability of the species for subsistence use.
(ii) The FWS will review the POC to ensure that any potential
adverse effects on the availability of the animals are minimized. The
FWS will reject or require modification of POCs if they do not provide
adequate safeguards to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on
the availability of walruses and polar bears for subsistence use.
Sec. 18.127 Monitoring.
Holders of an LOA must develop and implement a site-specific, FWS-
approved marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the effects of
activities on walruses, polar bears, and the subsistence use of these
species and provide trained, qualified, and FWS-approved onsite
observers to carry out the activities identified in the marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plan.
Sec. 18.128 Reporting requirements.
Holders of an LOA must report the results of monitoring and
mitigation activities to the FWS's MMM Office via email at:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99ffeeaec6f4f4f4c6ebfce9f6ebedead9ffeeeab7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b4d5c1c7446464674594e5b44595f586b4d5c58054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>.
(a) In-season monitoring reports.
(1) Activity progress reports. Holders of an LOA must:
(i) Notify the FWS at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
(ii) Provide the FWS weekly progress reports of any significant
changes in activities and/or locations; and
(iii) Notify the FWS within 48 hours after ending of activities.
(2) Walrus observation reports. Holders of an LOA must report, on a
weekly basis, all observations of walruses during any industry
activity. Upon request, monitoring report data must be provided in a
common electronic format (to be specified by the FWS). Information in
the observation report must include, but is not limited to:
(i) Date and time of the observation;
(ii) Locations of the observer and walruses (GPS coordinates if
possible);
(iii) Number of walruses;
(iv) Sex and age class of walruses (if known);
(v) Observer name and contact information;
(vi) Weather, visibility, and if at sea, sea state, and sea-ice
conditions at the time of the observation;
(vii) Estimated distance of walruses at closest approach;
(viii) Industry activity at time of the observation;
(ix) Behavior of animals sighted;
(x) Description of the encounter;
(xi) Duration of the encounter; and
(xii) Mitigation actions taken.
(3) Polar bear observation reports. Holders of an LOA must report,
within 48 hours, all observations of polar bears and potential polar
bear dens, during any industry activity. Upon request, monitoring
report data must be provided in a common electronic format (to be
specified by the FWS). Information in the observation report must
include, but is not limited to:
(i) Date and time of the observation;
(ii) Locations of the observer and polar bears (GPS coordinates if
possible);
(iii) Number of polar bears;
(iv) Sex and age class of polar bears (if known);
(v) Observer name and contact information;
(vi) Weather, visibility, and if at sea, sea state, and sea-ice
conditions at the time of the observation;
(vii) Estimated closest distance of polar bears from personnel and
facilities;
(viii) Industry activity at time of the observation;
(ix) Possible attractants present;
(x) Polar bear behavior;
(xi) Description of the observation;
(xii) Duration of the observation; and
(xiii) Mitigation actions taken.
(b) Notification of LOA incident report. Holders of an LOA must
report, as soon as possible, but within 48 hours, all LOA incidents
during any industry activity. An LOA incident is any situation in which
specified activities exceed the authority of an LOA, a mitigation
measure was required but not enacted, or injury or death of a walrus or
polar bear occurs.
(1) Reports must include all information specified for an
observation report, a complete detailed description of the incident,
and any other actions taken.
(2) Injured, dead, or distressed walruses or polar bears that are
clearly not associated with the specified activities (e.g., animals
found outside the project area, previously wounded animals, or
carcasses with moderate to advanced decomposition or scavenger damage)
must also be reported to the FWS immediately, and not later than 48
hours after discovery. Photographs, video, location information, or any
other available documentation must be included.
(c) Final report. The results of monitoring and mitigation efforts
identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan must be
submitted to the FWS for review within 90 days of the expiration of an
LOA. Upon request, final report data must be provided in a common
electronic format (to be specified by the FWS). Information in the
final report must include, but is not limited to:
(1) Copies of all observation reports submitted under the LOA;
(2) A summary of the observation reports;
(3) A summary of monitoring and mitigation efforts including areas,
total hours, total distances, and distribution;
(4) Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability
of walruses and polar bears during monitoring;
(5) Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
(6) Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of
walruses and/or polar bears observed; and
(7) Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
Sec. 18.129 Information collection requirements.
OMB has approved the collection of information contained in this
subpart and assigned OMB control number 1018-0070. We may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this requirement to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, at the address listed in 50 CFR part 2.1.
Brian R. Nesvik
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-04558 Filed 3-6-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 9, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.