Proposed Rule2026-09885
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea; Seismic Exploration Activities by SAExploration, Inc.
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
May 18, 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 SAExploration, Inc., to issue regulations facilitating the authorization of incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears during seismic exploration activities on the North Slope of Alaska. Take may result from three-dimensional seismic survey programs and associated activities occurring for a period of 5 years beginning July 1, 2026. If this rule is finalized, we may issue letters of authorization, upon request, for specific activities in accordance with the final rule for a period of up to 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 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 95 (Monday, May 18, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28521-28548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09885]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0086; FXES111607MRG01-267-FF07CAMM00]
RIN 1018-BG75
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears in the Southern
Beaufort Sea; Seismic Exploration Activities by SAExploration, Inc.
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 SAExploration,
Inc., to issue regulations facilitating the authorization of
incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears during
seismic exploration activities on the North Slope of Alaska. Take may
result from three-dimensional seismic survey programs and associated
activities occurring for a period of 5 years beginning July 1, 2026. If
this rule is finalized, we may issue letters of authorization, upon
request, for specific activities in accordance with the final rule for
a period of up to 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 on these proposed regulations and the
accompanying draft environmental assessment from the public, Tribes,
and local, State, and Federal agencies.
DATES: Comments on these proposed incidental take regulations and the
accompanying draft environmental assessment will be accepted on or
before June 17, 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.
Information collection requirements: If you wish to comment on the
information collection requirements in this proposed rule, please note
that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to make a
decision concerning the collection of information contained in this
proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this proposed
rule in the Federal Register. Such comments should be submitted to OMB,
with a copy to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (see ``Information Collection'' section
below under ADDRESSES) by July 17, 2026.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: You may view this proposed rule, the
associated draft environmental assessment, comments received, and other
supporting material (including Supporting & Related Material) at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0086, or
these documents may be requested as described under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment submission: You may submit comments on the proposed rule
and draft environmental assessment by one of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic submission: Federal eRulemaking Portal at:
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0086.
<bullet> U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2023-0086, Policy and Regulations Branch, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church,
VA 22041-3803.
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 for more information.
Information collection requirements: Written comments and
suggestions on the information collection requirements should be
submitted within 60 days of publication of this notice to <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. Please provide a copy of
your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W),
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c980a7afa6968aa6a5a589afbebae7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3871565e57677b575454785e4f4b165f574e">[email protected]</span></a> (email).
Please reference ``1018-New/RIN 1018-BG75'' in the subject line of your
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Burgess, by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f082c79d9d9d829597859c91849f8289b0968783de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3745005a5a5a455250425b564358454e7751404419505841">[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 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 that, if finalized, would authorize the incidental,
unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)
during seismic exploration and associated activities on the North Slope
of Alaska. If finalized, this proposed rule would be effective for
[[Page 28522]]
a 5-year period beginning at the date of issuance.
This proposed rule is based on our draft findings that the total
takings of polar bears during specified activities will impact small
numbers of animals, will have a negligible impact on this species or
stocks, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of this species for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. We
base our draft findings on data from monitoring the encounters and
interactions between this species and the oil and gas industry;
research on this species; oil spill risk assessments; potential and
documented effects on this species from similar activities; information
regarding the natural history and conservation status of polar bears;
and data reported from Alaska Native subsistence hunters. In
conjunction with this proposed rulemaking, we have prepared a draft
environmental assessment, which is also available for public review and
comment.
These proposed regulations include permissible methods of taking;
mitigation measures to ensure that SAExploration, Inc,'s (SAE)
activities will have the least practicable adverse impact on the
species, their habitat, and the availability of this 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 impacts.'' We recognize ``small numbers''
and ``negligible impacts'' as two separate and distinct requirements
for promulgating incidental take regulations (ITR) 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 enacting 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 to set forth new ITRs, the term ``Industry''
includes individuals, companies, and organizations involved in
exploration, development, production, extraction, processing,
transportation, research, monitoring, and support services of the
petroleum industry. SAE's activities may result in the incidental
taking of polar bears. The MMPA does not require that SAE must obtain
incidental take authorization; however, any incidental taking that
occurs without authorization is a violation of the MMPA.
Summary of Request
On January 27, 2022, the FWS received a request from SAE to
promulgate regulations for nonlethal incidental take of small numbers
of Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) stock polar bears on the North Slope of
Alaska for a period of 5 years (December 2023 through November 2028).
After coordination with the FWS on mitigation measures and take
analysis during meetings on March 23, 2022, and April 18, 2022, we
received a revised request to promulgate regulations on May 4, 2022.
The FWS further coordinated with SAE on January 12, 2023, and February
3, 2023, and received a revised request on February 14, 2023, which was
deemed adequate and complete. However, a proposed ITR based on this
February 14, 2023, request was ultimately not published for public
comment on the Federal Register and therefore, no associated
regulations were promulgated.
On August 12, 2025, the FWS received a new revised request from SAE
to promulgate regulations for nonlethal incidental take of small
numbers of SBS stock of polar bears on the North Slope of Alaska for a
period of 5 years (beginning July 1, 2026) (hereafter referred to as
the ``Request''). The FWS further coordinated with SAE to discuss polar
bear denning survey area sizes on September 24, 2025. The FWS deemed
SAE's revised Request (received August 12, 2025) adequate and complete
on September 25, 2025.
[[Page 28523]]
Description of the Proposed Regulations
These proposed regulations, if finalized, would authorize the
incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears that may
result from the specified activities based on standards set forth in
the MMPA. They would not authorize or ``permit'' activities, only the
incidental take of polar bears that may occur associated with those
activities. The proposed regulations include:
(1) Permissible methods of taking;
(2) Measures designed to ensure the least practicable adverse
impact on polar bears and their habitat, and on the availability of
this species or stock for subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
These proposed regulations, if finalized in their current form,
would differ from prior polar bear take authorizations in terms of the
types of incidental take that would be allowed. Past iterations of
polar bear take authorizations 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
Beaufort Sea 2021-2026 regulations (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021) but
did anticipate and thus allowed Level A harassment in the revised
Beaufort Sea 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 Beaufort Sea 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.
Description of Letters of Authorization (LOAs)
An LOA is required to conduct activities pursuant to an ITR. Under
this proposed ITR, if finalized, SAE may request LOAs that would
authorize take of polar bears that occurs incidental to the specific
activities described in these proposed regulations. 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 number of days of work
and the nature of work to be conducted; (2) a digital geospatial file
of the project footprint; (3) estimates of monthly human occupancy of
the project area; (4) an interaction plan for polar bears; (5) 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, including frequency and dates of aerial infrared (AIR)
surveys when such surveys are required; and (6) Plans of Cooperation
(POC), if required as described below. Once this information has been
received, we will evaluate each request and issue the LOAif we find
that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for
the total taking allowable under the ITR. We must receive an after-
action report on the monitoring and mitigation activities within 90
days after the LOA expires. For more information on requesting and
receiving an LOA, refer to 50 CFR 18.27(f).
Description of Plans of Cooperation (POC)
A POC is a documented plan describing measures to mitigate
potential conflicts between specified activities and Alaska Native
subsistence hunting. The circumstances under which a POC must be
developed and submitted with a request for an LOA are described below.
To help ensure that specified activities do not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the species for Alaska Native
subsistence hunting opportunities, all applicants requesting an LOA
under this ITR must 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 POC must be developed
and submitted with the applicant's request for an LOA. In developing
the POC, SAE 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 for
Alaska Native subsistence uses.
Description of Specified Geographic Region and Specified Activities
The specified geographic region covered by the requested ITR
includes onshore and nearshore areas along the Beaufort Sea coast of
Alaska's North Slope. The boundary extends from the Colville River
(150.85[deg] W) in the west to the Canning River (145.98[deg] W) in the
east and south approximately 40 kilometers (km) (25 miles (mi)) inland.
No lands or waters within the exterior boundaries of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic NWR) are included in the SAE ITR
region. The geographical extent of the SAE seismic area is
approximately 6,201 square km (km\2\) (approx. 1.5 million acres (ac))
and is smaller than the region covered in the 2026-2031 Proposed
Beaufort Sea ITR (91 FR 11240, March 9, 2026) (figure 1, below).
[[Page 28524]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.014
Figure 1--Map of Proposed SAExploration, Inc, ITR Region, Beaufort Sea
SAE's specified activities include seismic exploration on land
along the Beaufort Sea coast to map potential hydrocarbon deposits.
Pre-acquisition activities will begin with helicopter-based
archeological surveys (if needed) in the summer, followed by AIR
surveys for maternal polar bear dens in December and January. Seismic
acquisition will begin with advanced crew surveys and ice checks after
January 15, followed by mobilization of camp facilities, and finally
seismic acquisition. Post-survey activities will include helicopter-
based cleanup in the summer. These activities are anticipated to occur
over a 5-year period.
Archaeological Surveys
Prior to field activities, SAE will perform archaeological surveys
of the project area. Field surveys will require helicopter-based
transects spaced 1.3 km (0.8 mi) apart to ensure terrain between the
transects can be visually inspected. Landings may be made to
investigate any landforms of interest, and crews may perform shovel
tests if landforms are deemed likely to contain cultural resources or
if surface artifacts are found. Field surveys may take up to 10 days of
flying at altitudes below 457 meters (m) (1,500 feet (ft)), with up to
20 take-offs and landings per day, and will occur during July or
August. Surveys near coastal, or high-use polar bear areas will be
prioritized prior to the mid-August annual influx of polar bears along
the coastal areas.
AIR Surveys for Maternal Polar Bear Dens
SAE will conduct or obtain between one and three AIR surveys
dependent upon location. As described below in Den Simulation and
displayed in figures 2 and 3, below, the FWS developed, and SAE
incorporated into their Request, a spatial projection of polar bear
denning density probabilities along the North Slope of Alaska (i.e., a
denning density map) to delineate high and moderate denning density
zones (see Den Simulation for greater detail). Project areas located in
high denning density zones will be AIR surveyed three times, project
areas in moderate denning density zones will be AIR surveyed twice, and
anywhere outside of either the moderate or high denning density zones
will be AIR surveyed once. When either one or two AIR surveys are
needed, the first survey 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 will be flown between
an altitude of 244 m (800 ft) and 457 m (1,500 ft) using a fixed-wing
aircraft originating from Deadhorse Airport.
Advance Crew Survey and Ice Check
Approximately 2 weeks prior to mobilization, an advance crew will
perform route surveys and ice checks along existing routes to measure
ice integrity. The advance crew will mobilize no earlier than January
15, or upon the opening of winter tundra travel, whichever occurs
later. Ice checking will be conducted using tracked vehicles and snow
machines. Tracked vehicles will have vehicle-mounted infrared devices
to scan tributary crossings for potential polar bear dens within
defined denning habitat.
An additional component of the advance crew will be a snow survey
crew mobilizing 7-20 days prior to the main project crew. This crew
consists of camp trailers, fuelers, Steigers (tractors), Tuckers
(industrial snow machines), and support trailers with three to four
crews of two personnel each. These crews will focus on evaluating ice
conditions and safe routes for seismic operations and can cover up to
16 km (9.94 mi) per day. At the end of each day, crews will return to
camp. The camp will move, as needed, to remain
[[Page 28525]]
within a reasonable distance of operations.
Mobilization and Support Facilities
Seismic camp facilities and crews will mobilize shortly after the
advance crew has delineated a route. Up to two 180-person-camp seismic
crews may be supported in any given winter season to conduct seismic
programs within the project area. Equipment will be staged at existing
facilities in Deadhorse. A predetermined route, along preexisting
routes to the maximum extent practicable, will be used to mobilize
equipment from existing gravel or ice roads and pads. Camp equipment
will include long-haul fuel tractors, remote fuelers, water makers, an
incinerator, a resupply and survival sleigh, tractors, loaders, and
Tuckers. Camp locations are selected based on topography and snow
conditions and may remain in place for up to 7 days before moving.
Typically, a camp may move 1.6-3.2 km (1-2 mi) every 5-7 days, or four-
six moves per month. The camp will generally remain in the center of
the active seismic survey area.
If there is not sufficient road access and a lake or tundra area is
of sufficient size for an airstrip, a camp may include a temporary
winter airstrip. Airstrips will be located within 2 km of camp and have
a footprint of approximately 22.8 m (75 ft) wide and 701-1,066 m
(2,300-3,500 ft) long for aircraft to land. The advanced scouting trip
will identify any lakes or tundra locations that can be used to
construct an airstrip. Airstrip construction will require a rubber
tracked Steiger with a blade to clear a berm to delineate the edge of
the landing strip. Approximately two trips per week are anticipated, or
as operations require. Flights will originate from Deadhorse Airport
and aircraft will transit at an altitude greater than 457 m (1,500 ft)
as weather and safety conditions allow. Once the camp is moved, the
airstrip will no longer be maintained by the crew. Personnel and camp
facilities will be demobilized on approximately May 31 or upon closure
of winter tundra travel.
Seismic Program
Seismic surveys using vibroseis will be conducted on land or stable
pack ice using truck- or track-mounted vibrators. Surveys on ice will
occur on a minimum of 1.2 m (3.9 ft) of ice, which is necessary to
support heavy vehicles. First, the geophones (receivers) will be placed
at receiver points marked by the advance crew approximately every 30-35
m (98-115 ft). Vibrator source points will be marked at equivalent
intervals. The vibrators will move to the beginning of a seismic survey
line, begin vibrating in synchrony, and recording begins. There will be
two sizes of vibrators: large vibrators with a weight of 44,000
kilograms (kg) and small vibrators with a weight of 12,475 kg. The
smaller vibrators will be used to limit impacts in areas such as narrow
riverbeds and ungrounded lakes. The method of acquisition for this
project will be source-driven shooting with multiple vibrators
collecting data at the same time, but only a single vibrator is
required to travel down any source line, reducing the project's
footprint.
Operations will continue for 24 hours per workday and are based on
two 12-hour shifts. A seismic program may last between 30 and 100 days
in a winter season depending on the requested survey areas and the
seismic survey density. Approximately 5-7 days are required to set out
equipment in each section with the camp located in the center of the
spread. During acquisition, camps are expected to be occupied by
approximately 160-180 people.
Summer Cleanup
After all the snow is gone in July or August, SAE will contract a
helicopter to perform flyovers of the survey area looking for debris
that may have been left behind. The cleanup crew will also inspect all
camp locations, any area that had an unplanned release or tundra
disturbance, and each source and receiver line. This activity will
occur over approximately 15 days, including possible weather days. Each
survey day will require about 6 hours of flight time, traveling below
305 m (1,000 ft) above ground level, and will include 25-40 landings.
All SAE summer cleanup will be scheduled in a manner that aims to
complete any work near coastal, or high-use, polar bear areas before
the annual influx of polar bears coming to shore in mid-August to
minimize impacts to polar bears. However, in order to mitigate impacts
to threatened eiders in the project area, SAE will not conduct cleanup
activities in nesting areas before July 31.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region
Polar bears are the only species of marine mammal managed by the
FWS likely found within the specified geographic region. Information on
the range, stocks, biology, and environmental impacts on polar bears
was considered in the development of this proposed ITR. A summary of
such information can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under
Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0086 (available as described above in
ADDRESSES).
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.
Disturbance from the specified activities would originate primarily
from helicopter overflights, tundra travel, seismic data acquisition,
mobilization and operation of camp facilities, and cleanup activities.
The noises, sights, and smells produced by these activities will elicit
variable responses from polar bears, ranging from no impact (ignoring
the stimulus) to 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,
unintentional harassment, intentional hazing, or possible lethal take
in defense of human life. This proposed ITR, if finalized, would
facilitate the authorization of the incidental, unintentional take of
polar bears that may result from the specified activities and would
require mitigation measures to manage attractants in work areas and
reduce the risk of human-polar bear interactions.
Human-Polar Bear Interactions
A larger percentage of 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; Rode et al. 2022).
SAE's Request outlines polar bear monitoring and reporting requirements
and a polar bear interaction plan with information describing SAE's
personnel training and attractants management. Polar bear interaction
plans, personnel training, attractants management, and polar bear
monitoring are mitigation measures used to reduce human-polar bear
interactions and minimize the risks to polar bears and humans when
interactions occur. Polar bear interaction plans detail the policies
and procedures that will be implemented by SAE to avoid attracting and
interacting with polar bears, and minimize impacts
[[Page 28526]]
to the polar bears. Interaction plans also detail how to respond to the
presence of polar bears, the chain of command and communication, and
required training for personnel. Appropriate management of attractants
(e.g., human food, garbage) may decrease the likelihood of polar bears
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 is used 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. It is possible that human-polar
bear interactions may occur during the specified activities, and
mitigation measures will be implemented by SAE to minimize the risk of
human-polar bear interactions during the specified activities.
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 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. The applicant has
considered polar bear ecology as it relates to seasonal distributions
and habitat usage when proposing the timing of when to conduct
activities in certain locations as a measure to help minimize or avoid
human-polar bear interactions.
Effects of Aircraft Activities on Polar Bears
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 (Healy, 1974, Richardson et al. 1995, Southall et al. 2019).
Although no hearing impairment is likely as a result of the specified
activities, aircraft overflights may elicit biologically significant
behavioral responses from polar bears. 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, in some
impacted polar bears, and, therefore, has the potential to be
energetically costly. Polar bears observed during intentional aircraft
overflights conducted to study impacts of aircraft on polar bear
responses, with an average flight altitude of 143 m (469 ft), exhibited
biologically meaningful behavioral responses during 66.6 percent of
aircraft overflights. These behavioral responses were significantly
correlated with the aircraft's altitude, the bear's location (e.g.,
coastline, barrier island), and the bear's activity (Quigley 2022;
Quigley et al. 2024). Polar bears associated with dens exhibited
various responses that ranged from no response to increased head
movement and observation of the disturbance to the initiation of rapid
movement and/or den abandonment when exposed to aircraft flying at
altitudes of 150 m or less (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, due to well-characterized increased
densities of polar bears on land during these months. 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
already limited energy reserves. To reduce potential disturbance of
polar bears during aircraft activities, mitigation measures, such as
minimum flight altitudes over polar bears and their frequently used
areas and flight restrictions around known polar bear aggregations,
will be conducted when it is safe to perform these operations during
aircraft activities.
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 one mile of human
activity. If a known or suspected den site is located, SAE will
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 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
addition, SAE has already committed to providing a 1.6 km exclusionary
zone around any putative dens located.
The responses of denning polar bears to disturbance and the
consequences of these responses can vary throughout the denning
process. We divide the denning period into four stages when considering
impacts of disturbance: den establishment, early denning, late denning,
and post-emergence; definitions and descriptions are provided by
Woodruff et al. (2022a) and are also located in the 2026-2031 Proposed
Beaufort Sea ITR and its associated supplemental information (91 FR
11240, March 9, 2026)). The stage at which harassment occurs defines
the level of disturbance response (Level B harassment, Level A
harassment, or Lethal) attributed to either the sow or cub(s), along
with the probability of the specific response occurring (see Denning
Analysis).
Impacts of the Specified Activities on Polar Bear Prey Species
Seals, especially ringed seals (Phoca (pusa) hispida) and bearded
seals (Erignathus barbatus), are the primary prey species of polar
bears in the specified geographic area. Polar bears could be impacted
by reduced seal availability, displacement of seals in response to
SAE's activities, increased energy demands to hunt for displaced seals,
and increased dependency on
[[Page 28527]]
limited alternative prey sources, such as scavenging on bowhead whale
carcasses harvested during subsistence hunts. If seal availability were
to decrease, then the survival of polar bears may be drastically
affected (Fahd et al. 2021). However, due to the location of the
specified activities in relation to suitable seal habitat, the FWS does
not anticipate any substantial impacts of prey availability to polar
bears as a result of SAE's specified activities. Furthermore, if
impacts were to occur, any impacts on seals are anticipated to be minor
and short-term, and these impacts are unlikely to substantially reduce
the availability of seals as a prey source for polar bears. Information
on the potential impacts of the specified activities on polar bear prey
species can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2023-0086 (available as described above in ADDRESSES).
Potential Impacts of Oil Spills on Polar Bears
The FWS reviewed the potential impacts of oil spills on the SBS
stock of polar bears and records of oil spills in the specified
geographic region and evaluated oil spill response methods in the
specified geographic region. No oil and gas extraction or production
would be conducted as a part of this proposed ITR. The extent of
possible oil spills would be small and highly localized and would be
the result of small tank or equipment failure. Therefore, no polar
bears are expected to be affected by oil spills. Information from this
review can be found as described above in ADDRESSES. The FWS's findings
from this review are consistent with the findings described in 2026-
2031 Proposed Beaufort Sea ITR (91 FR 11240, March 9, 2026).
Estimated Take
Definitions of Incidental Take Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
Below we provide definitions of three types of take of polar bears.
The FWS does not anticipate any lethal take as a part of this proposed
ITR; however, the definitions of the three take types are provided for
context and background.
Lethal Take
Human activity may result in biologically significant impacts to
polar bears. In the most serious interactions (e.g., vehicle collision,
running over an unknown den causing its collapse), human actions can
result in the mortality of polar bears. We also note that in the past,
while not considered incidental, polar bears have been killed in
situations where there is an imminent threat to human life. Polar bears
have also been accidentally killed during efforts to deter polar bears
from a work area for safety, and have died 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.
Level A Harassment
Human activity may result in the injury of polar bears. Level A
harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is defined as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.
Numerous actions can cause take by Level A harassment of polar bear
cubs during the denning period, such as creating a disturbance that
separates mothers from dependent cubs (Amstrup 2003), inducing early
den emergence during the late denning period (Amstrup and Gardner 1994;
Rode et al. 2018), instigating early departure from the den site during
the post-emergence period (Andersen et al. 2024), or repeatedly
interrupting the nursing or resting of cubs to the extent that it
impacts the cubs' body condition.
Level B Harassment
Level B harassment for nonmilitary readiness activities means any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to disturb
a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, feeding, or sheltering. Changes in
behavior that disrupt biologically significant behaviors or activities
for the affected animal are indicative of take by Level B harassment
under the MMPA. Such reactions include, but are not limited to, the
following:
<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;
<bullet> Abandoning or avoiding preferred movement corridors such
as ice floes, leads, polynyas, a segment of coastline, or barrier
islands;
<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 cubs struggling to
keep up;
<bullet> Temporary, short-term cessation of nursing or resting
(cubs);
<bullet> Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a prolonged period
(adults);
<bullet> Loss of hunting opportunity due to disturbance of prey; or
<bullet> Interruption in normal denning behavior that does not
cause injury, den abandonment, or early departure of the female with
cubs from the den site.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other
behavioral responses may be indicative of take by Level B harassment.
Relatively minor changes in behavior such as the animal raising its
head or temporarily changing its direction of travel are not likely to
disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns, and the FWS does
not view such minor changes in behavior as indicative of a take by
Level B harassment. It is also important to note that eliciting
behavioral responses that equate to take by Level B harassment
repeatedly may result in Level A harassment.
Surface Interactions
We analyzed take by Level B harassment for polar bears that may be
potentially encountered and impacted during SAE's seismic exploration
activities within the specified geographic region.
Impact Area
To assess the area of potential impact from the project activities,
we calculate the area affected by project activities where harassment
is possible. We refer to this area as an impact area. Behavioral
response rates of polar bears to disturbances are highly variable, and
data to support the relationship between distance to polar bears and
disturbance is limited. Dyck and Baydack (2004) found sex-based
differences in the frequencies of vigilance bouts, which involves an
animal raising its head to visually scan its surroundings, by polar
bears in the presence of vehicles on the tundra. However, in their
summary of polar bear behavioral response to ice-breaking vessels in
the Chukchi Sea, Smultea et al. (2016) found no difference between
reactions of males, females with cubs, or females without cubs. During
the FWS's coastal aerial surveys, 99 percent of polar bears that
responded in a way that indicated possible Level B harassment (polar
bears that were running when detected or began to run or swim in
response to the aircraft) did so within 1.6 km (1 mi), as measured from
the ninetieth percentile horizontal detection distance from the flight
line. Similarly, Andersen and
[[Page 28528]]
Aars (2008) found that female polar bears with cubs (the most
conservative group observed) began to walk or run away from approaching
snowmobiles at a mean distance of 1,534 m (0.95 mi). Thus, while future
research into the reaction of polar bears to anthropogenic disturbance
may indicate a different zone of potential impact is appropriate, the
current literature suggests that the 1.6-km (1.0-mi) impact area will
encompass the vast majority of polar bear harassment events.
Estimated Harassment
We estimated Level B harassment using the spatiotemporally specific
encounter rates and temporally specific harassment rates derived in the
2026-2031 Proposed Beaufort Sea ITR (91 FR 11240, March 9, 2026) in
conjunction with SAE's project operations footprint. Table 1 provides
the definition for each variable used in the formulas to calculate the
number of potential harassment events.
Table 1--Definitions of Variables Used in Harassment Estimates of Non-
Denning Polar Bears on the North Slope of Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B............................ bears encountered in an impact area for
the entire season.
r............................ repeat bear rate.
a............................ coastal exposure area.
a............................ inland exposure area.
r............................ occupancy rate.
e............................ coastal open water season bear-encounter
rate in bears/season.
e............................ inland open water season bear-encounter
rate in bears/season.
e............................ coastal ice season bear-encounter rate in
bears/season.
e............................ inland ice season bear-encounter rate in
bears/season.
t............................ ice season harassment rate.
B............................ number of estimated Level B harassment
events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The variables defined above were used in a series of formulas
created to estimate the total harassment from surface-level
interactions. Encounter rates were originally calculated as polar bears
encountered per square km per season. As a part of their Request, SAE
provided the FWS with the greatest area of surveys within the coastal
zone and the inland zone during any given year of the ITR. We assumed
100 percent human occupancy of these areas during activities, which
will begin no earlier than January 15, and last no longer than 100
days. SAE also provided spatial files that indicated the roads and
travel routes that they will use during seismic surveys. SAE will
preferentially use previously existing routes; however, they have
identified 29.9 km (18.6 mi) of unique tundra travel that is not
associated with any previous travel. Estimates of potential harassment
include activities on previously existing routes, and routes not
associated with any previous travel.
Impact areas were multiplied by the appropriate encounter rate to
obtain the number of polar bears expected to be encountered in the
impact area per season (Bes). The equation below (equation 1) provides
an example of the calculation of polar bears encountered in the ice
season for an impact area in the coastal zone.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.015
To generate the number of estimated Level B harassments for each
impact area, we multiplied the number of polar bears in the impact area
per season by the proportion of the season the area is occupied, the
rate of occupancy, and the harassment rate (equation 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.016
Aircraft Impacts on Polar Bears
Polar bears in the project area will likely be exposed to the
visual and auditory stimulation associated with the applicant's fixed-
wing and helicopter activities; however, these impacts are anticipated
to be minimal and short-term. Aircraft activities may cause disruptions
in the normal behavioral patterns of polar bears as either an auditory
or visual stimulus, thereby resulting in incidental Level B harassment.
To reduce the likelihood that polar bears are disturbed by aircraft,
SAE has included a variety mitigation measures, such as minimum flight
altitudes over polar bears and restrictions on sudden changes to
aircraft movements and direction. Once mitigated, such disturbances are
expected to have no more than short-term, temporary, and minor impacts
on individual polar bears.
Estimating Harassment Rates of Aircraft Activities
Harassment rates during aircraft activities were estimated using
results from studies of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter overflights
(Quigley 2022;
[[Page 28529]]
Quigley et al. 2024). In these studies, researchers conducted aerial
searches along the northern coast of Alaska between Point Barrow and
the western Canadian border, approaching polar bears at different
altitudes. When polar bears did not exhibit behavioral changes
consistent with harassment, researchers then re-approached them at
progressively lower altitudes, reaching as low as 30 m (100 ft).
Researchers recorded behavioral changes during these approaches and
evaluated if and when Level B harassment occurred. The researchers
examined the following covariates: polar bear location (``barrier
island'' or ``mainland''), initial behavior (``active'' or
``inactive''), group size, whether the polar bear belonged to a family
group, and the number of previous overflights (i.e., how many times the
group was re-approached to elicit a behavioral change). A Bayesian
imputation approach accounted for polar bears that exhibited a
behavioral change consistent with harassment on their first approach,
thus lacking an identified altitude at which no harassment occurred due
to a lack of a ``non-harassment'' observation. Their final model
included location, activity level, and the number of previous
overflights as predictors of the altitude at which a polar bear was
harassed (Quigley 2022; Quigley et al. 2024). For our aircraft impacts
analysis, we used harassment rates estimated for active polar bears
observed on barrier islands, as they had the highest rates of
harassment. We further assumed that there were no previous overflights.
We provide harassment rates for the following five categories of
flights: take-offs, landings, low-altitude flights (defined as those
between 122 m (400 ft) and 305 m (1,000 ft) altitude), mid-altitude
flights (defined as those between 305 m (1,000 ft) and 457 m (1,500 ft)
altitude), and high-altitude flights (defined as those between 457 m
(1,500 ft) and 610 m (2,000 ft) altitude). We assigned harassment rates
to each of these flight categories using the harassment rate for the
lowest altitude in the category (e.g., for low-altitude flights, we
used the harassment rate estimated for 122 m (400 ft)). This binning
method of using the lowest altitude harassment rate in the bin allowed
our estimates to be inclusive of possible changes in altitude due to
variable flight conditions (table 2).
Table 2--Harassment Rates for the Five Categories of Flights for Fixed-
Wing Aircraft and Helicopter Overflights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight category Fixed-wing Helicopter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take-offs............................... 0.99 >0.99
Landings................................ 0.99 >0.99
Low-Altitude Flights (122-305 m)........ 0.86 >0.99
Mid-Altitude Flights (305-457 m)........ 0.03 0.82
High-Altitude Flights (457-610 m)....... <0.01 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The rates in this table are based on Quigley et al. (2024).
We used the harassment rate associated with 30 m (100 ft) for take-offs
and landings.
Estimating Area of Impact for Aircraft Activities
For each category of the flight path (i.e., take-off, low-altitude
travel, mid-altitude travel, high-altitude travel, and landing), we
calculated an impact area and duration of impact using flight hours or
flight path information provided in the Request. Using flight logs
available through <a href="https://www.FlightAware.com">https://www.FlightAware.com</a> (FlightAware), a website
that maintains flight logs in the public domain, we estimated a take-
off distance of 2.41 km (1.5 mi) and a landing distance of 4.83 km (3
mi) per 305 m (1,000 ft) of altitude. For traveling segments, we
treated the aircraft as a traveling impact zone. We then spatially
referenced all take-offs, landings, and travel areas to determine
whether they were within the coastal or inland zone. The coastal zone
is defined as the area offshore and within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the
coastline, and the inland zone is defined as anything greater than 2 km
(1.2 mi) from the coastline. We estimated all archeological and summer
cleanup flights to occur in the coastal zone to account for uncertainty
about future flight plans. To determine the potential coastal and
inland impact areas ratio of the resupply flights, we used a
hypothetical flight from Deadhorse Airport to the northeastern corner
of the potential survey area, which would have the greatest potential
impact of any flights in the survey area. We conservatively considered
landings (which have a larger impact area) to occur within the coastal
zone. We buffered all flight segments by 1.6 km (1 mi), which is
consistent with aircraft surveys conducted by the FWS and U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) between August and October during most years
from 2000 to 2014 (Schliebe et al. 2008; Atwood et al. 2015; Wilson et
al. 2017). In these surveys, 99 percent of groups of polar bears that
exhibited behavioral responses consistent with Level B harassment were
observed within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the aircraft.
To calculate the total number of Level B harassment events
estimated due to the specified activities, we calculated the number of
flight hours for each flight category (i.e., take-offs, low-altitude
travel, mid-altitude travel, high-altitude travel, and landings) for
each zone and season combination. We estimated both take-off and
landing areas would be impacted for 10 minutes. SAE provided traveling
segment flight hours for both archaeological and summer cleanup
flights. We divided the above-mentioned hypothetical resupply flight
from Deadhorse Airport to the northeast corner of the potential survey
area into coastal and inland zones. To avoid counting impacts twice, we
subtracted the take-off distance from the coastal end of the flight
path, and landing distance from the inland end of the flight path. We
then calculated the amount of time that would be spent flying in
coastal and inland areas using a conservative flight speed of 129 km
per hour (80 mi per hour).
We then used flight hours to calculate the proportion of the season
that aircraft occupied impact areas (i.e., take-off, landing, or
traveling segment). This proportion-of-season metric is equivalent to
the occupancy rate (ro) generated for surface-level interaction
harassment estimates. We multiplied the total impact area for each of
the flight categories by the zone and season-specific polar bear
encounter rates previously described in the 2026-2031 Proposed Beaufort
Sea ITR 91 FR 11240, March 9, 2026 to determine the number of polar
bears expected in that area for the season (i.e., Bes, as seen in
equation 1). We then multiplied this number by the proportion of the
season to determine the number of polar bears expected in that area
when flights are occurring, and the appropriate
[[Page 28530]]
harassment rate based on flight altitude to estimate the number of
polar bears that may be harassed as a result of the flights (as seen in
equation 2).
Estimated Harassment From Aircraft Activities
Using the approaches described above, we estimated the total number
of polar bears expected to be harassed by the aircraft activities
during the proposed regulatory period as a total of six polar bears per
year (table 3).
Table 3--Estimated Level B Harassment of Polar Bears in Project Area From Aircraft Operations Annually During
the Proposed Regulatory Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer
Archeological Resupply cleanup Total (rounded up to nearest
surveys flights activities integer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Harassment........ 2.13 0.007 3.05 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denning Analysis
Below we provide a complete description, and results of the polar
bear den simulation model used to assess impacts to denning polar bears
from disturbance associated with all phases of the specified
activities.
Den Simulation
We simulated dens across the entire land portion of the SBS
subpopulation range in Alaska on areas identified as potential denning
habitat using the method of Durner and Atwood (2018) on available USGS
interferometric-synthetic-aperture-radar-generated digital terrain
model data across the entire SBS region. To simulate dens on the
landscape, we relied on the estimated number of dens in four different
regions of northern Alaska provided by Patil et al. (2022). These
included the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A), the area
between the Colville and Canning rivers (CC region), the Arctic NWR
1002 area, and ``Other,'' which is composed of the SBS region outside
these three main regions. The mean estimated number of dens in each
region during a given winter were as follows: 12 dens (95 percent
posterior credible interval (CI): 3-26) in the NPRA, 25 dens (95
percent CI: 11-47) in the CC region, 14 dens (95 percent CI: 5-30) in
Arctic NWR 1002 area, and 15 dens (95 percent CI: 5-32) in ``Other.''
We further broke down Patil et al. (2022)'s ``Other'' count using
empirical proportions from the USGS polar bear den catalog (Durner et
al. 2020), to represent dens to the west and south of NPRA, dens in
non-1002 areas of Arctic NWR, and the Canadian portion of the SBS
region, the latter not used in any subsequent analyses. For each
iteration of the model (described below), we drew a random sample from
a gamma distribution for each of the regions based on the above
parameter estimates, which allowed uncertainty in the number of dens in
each area to be perpetuated through the modeling process. Specifically,
we used the method of moments (as described in Hobbs and Hooten 2015)
to develop the shape and rate parameters for the gamma distributions as
follows: NPRA (12\2\/5.8\2\, 12/5.8\2\), CC (25\2\/9.5\2\, 25/9.5\2\),
Arctic NWR 1002 area (14\2\/6.3\2\, 14/6.3\2\), and ``Other'' (15.1\2\/
7\2\, 15.1/7\2\).
Because not all areas in northern Alaska are equally used for
denning and some areas do not contain the requisite topographic
attributes required for sufficient snow accumulation for den
excavation, we did not simply randomly place dens on the landscape.
Instead, we followed a similar approach to the one used by Wilson and
Durner (2020) with some additional modifications to account for the
differences in denning ecology in the CC region related to a preference
to den on barrier islands and a general (but not complete) avoidance of
actively used industrial infrastructure. Using the USGS polar bear den
catalog (Durner et al. 2020) and two dens that were discovered from
Global Positioning System (GPS)-tagged bears collected since the den
catalogue was published (i.e., winter 2023/2024 and winter 2024/2025),
we identified polar bear dens that occurred on land in the CC region.
This approach resulted in a sample of 38 dens, of which 23 (i.e., 61
percent) occurred on barrier islands.
For each iteration of the model, we then determined how many of the
estimated dens in the CC region occurred on barrier islands versus the
mainland. To make this determination, we first took a random sample
from a binomial distribution to determine the expected number of dens
from the den catalog (Durner et al. 2020; and the one empirical
observation since the den catalogue was published) that should occur on
barrier islands in the CC region during that given model iteration;
n<INF>barrier</INF>~Binomial(38, 23/38), where 38 represents the total
number of dens in the CC region suitable for use (as described above)
and 23/38 represents the observed proportion of dens in the CC region
that occurred on barrier islands. Next, we divided n<INF>barrier</INF>
by the total number of dens in the CC region suitable for use (i.e.,
38) to determine the proportion of dens in the CC region that should
occur on barrier islands (i.e., p<INF>barrier</INF>). We then
multiplied p<INF>barrier</INF> with the simulated number of dens in the
CC region (rounded to the nearest whole number) to determine how many
dens were simulated to occur on barrier islands in the region, with the
remainder simulated to occur on the CC mainland.
To account for the potential influence of industrial activities and
infrastructure on the distribution of polar bear selection of den
sites, we again relied on the subset of dens from the den catalog
(Durner et al. 2020) discussed above. We further restricted the dens to
only those occurring on the mainland because no permanent
infrastructure occurred on barrier islands with identified denning
habitat. We then determined the minimum distance to permanent
infrastructure that was present during the year when the den was
identified.
The proportion of empirical dens <=5 km (3.1 mi) from
infrastructure was 0.25. Thus, for the mainland portion of simulated
dens in the CC region, we determined how many should be simulated to
occur <=5 km from infrastructure, and how many should be simulated to
occur >5 km from infrastructure at each iteration of the model. The
number of mainland dens <=5 km from infrastructure was modeled as
n<INF><=5km</INF>~ Binomial(n<INF>CC_mainland</INF>,0.25) where
n<INF>CC_mainland</INF> is the number of dens simulated to occur on the
mainland portion of the CC region during one iteration of the model.
The number of dens >5 km from infrastructure in the mainland portion of
the CC region was calculated as: n<INF>>5km</INF>=
n<INF>CC_mainland</INF>--n<INF><=5km</INF>.
To inform where dens are most likely to occur on the landscape, we
developed a kernel density map by using known den locations in northern
Alaska identified either by GPS-collared polar bears or through
systematic surveys for denning polar bears (Durner et al. 2020). To
approximate the distribution of dens, we used a scaled
[[Page 28531]]
adaptive kernel density estimator applied to observed den locations,
which took the form,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.017
where the adaptive bandwidth
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.018
for the location of the ith den and each location s in the study area.
The indicator functions allowed the bandwidth to vary abruptly between
the mainland M and barrier islands. The parameters u,
[Beta]<INF>0</INF>, [Beta]<INF>1</INF>, [Beta]<INF>2</INF> were chosen
so that the density estimate approximated the observed density of dens
and our understanding of likely den locations in areas with low
sampling effort.
To simulate dens on the landscape, we first created a systematic
grid of points every 50 m across the entire SBS region, retaining only
those points that fell within potential den habit. We assigned each
point a probability based on the kernel density map described above.
For each region or subregions outlined above with an assigned den
count, we then renormalized probabilities for all points respectively
within each region or subregion. We then randomly assigned dens using a
multinomial distribution based on relative probabilities and den counts
for each region or subregion outlined above.
For each simulated den, we assigned dates of key denning events:
den entrance, birth of cubs, when cubs reached 60 days of age, den
emergence, and departure from the den site after emergence. These
represent the chronology of each den under undisturbed conditions.
We selected the entrance date for each den from a normal
distribution parameterized by entrance dates of radio-collared polar
bears in the SBS stock that denned on land included in Rode et al.
(2018) and published in USGS (2018; n=52). The mean entrance date was
November 11, with a standard deviation of 18 days. We truncated this
distribution to ensure that all simulated dates occurred within the
range of observed values (i.e., September 12 to December 22).
We selected a date of birth for each litter from a normal
distribution with a mean birth date of December 15 and a Standard
Deviation (SD) of 10 days. We then restricted random samples of birth
dates to occur between December 1 and January 15, which is believed to
be the period of time when most cubs are born (Messier et al. 1994; Van
de Velde et al. 2003).
We selected the emergence date as a random draw from an asymmetric
Laplace distribution with parameters [mu]=82.5, [sigma]=4.11, and
p=0.81 (location, scale, and skewness respectively) estimated from the
empirical emergence dates (n=72) in Andersen et al. (2024) and Rode et
al. (2018; but published in USGS (2018)) of radio-collared polar bears
in the SBS subpopulation that denned on land using the mleALD function
from the ald package (Galarzar and Lachos 2018) in the program R (R
Core Development Team). We constrained simulated emergence dates to
occur within the range of observed emergence dates (January 9 to April
9) and not to occur prior to cubs reaching an age of 60 days.
Finally, we assigned the number of days each family group spent at
the den site post-emergence based on values reported in Andersen et al.
(2024), which estimated time spent at the den site based on temperature
and movement data for dens undisturbed by human activity (n = 20 dens
examined). Specifically, we used the mean (6.25) and SD (7.25) of the
dens monitored in these studies to parameterize a gamma distribution
using the method of moments (Hobbs and Hooten 2015) with a shape
parameter equal to 6.25\2\/7.25\2\ and a rate parameter equal to 6.25/
7.25\2\; we selected a post-emergence and pre-departure time for each
den from this distribution.
Additionally, we assigned each den a litter size by drawing the
number of cubs from a multinomial distribution with probabilities
derived from litter sizes (among a total of 43 litters) reported in
Smith et al. (2007, 2010, 2013) and Robinson (2014), case studies where
the number of cubs were observed at the den site, and a sample from one
GPS-tagged bear that had a camera monitoring its den prior to
emergence. Because there is some probability that a female naturally
emerges with zero cubs, we also wanted to ensure this scenario was
captured. It is difficult to parameterize the probability of litter
size equal to zero because it is rarely observed. We therefore assumed
that dens in the USGS (2018) dataset that had denning durations less
than the shortest den duration where a female was later observed with
cubs (i.e., 79 days) had a litter size of zero. Only three polar bears
in the USGS (2018) data met this criterion, leading to an assumed
probability of a litter size of zero at emergence being 0.069. We
therefore assigned the probability of zero, one, two, or three cubs as
0.069, 0.232, 0.628, and 0.070, respectively.
Impact Area of Specified Activities
The model developed by Wilson and Durner (2020) provides a template
for estimating the level of potential impact on denning polar bears
during the specified activities while also considering the natural
denning ecology of polar bears in the region. The approach developed by
Wilson and Durner (2020) also allows for the incorporation of
uncertainty in both the metrics associated with denning polar bears and
in the timing and spatial patterns of specified activities when precise
information on those activities is unavailable. In preparing its
Request, SAE coordinated with the FWS, who developed four denning
density zones within the specified geographical area to delineate areas
of high polar bear denning density within the specific geographical
area based on a thousand sets of den simulations (figure 2). Zones 1-4
represent the cumulative proportions 25 percent, 35 percent, 50
percent, and 75 percent of forecasted dens respectively: Where, Zone 4
is equal to 25 percent of the dens simulated for SBS polar bears (25th
quantile), Zone 3 is equal to 35 percent% of the dens simulated for SBS
polar bears (25th + 35th quantiles), Zone 2 is equal to 50 percent of
dens simulated (25th + 35th + 50th quantiles), and Zone 1 is equal to
75 percent of den simulated (25th + 35th + 50th + 75th quantiles)
(table 4).
In its Request, SAE submitted confidential spatial files of
potential future surveys that may be conducted under this ITR. In any
given single year, the proposed surveys would cover no more than 19
km\2\ (7 mi\2\) in Zone 4,220 km\2\ (85 mi\2\) in Zone 3,470 km\2\ (181
mi\2\) in Zone 2, and 515 km\2\ (199 mi\2\) in Zone 1 (table 4). These
zones were then used to generate a denning density map delineating high
and moderate denning density areas, where high density is composed of
Zones 3 and 4 plus the coastal zone (2 km (1.2 mi) from the shoreline)
and moderate density is composed of Zones 1 and 2 (figure 3). SAE will
use the previously described high and moderate denning
[[Page 28532]]
density map to determine the number of AIR surveys to conduct in
different areas of the proposed project (figure 3). We estimated
potential impacts to denning polar bears using the confidential
potential future survey areas. We assumed any dens within 0.8 km (0.5
mi) from survey activity would be exposed to disturbance during all
denning periods, and dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) would be exposed during
the den establishment, late denning, and post-emergence periods.
Table 4--Cumulative Proportion of Simulated Dens and Included Quantiles by Zone; and Maximum Annual Area of Each
Zone Potentially Included in SAExploration, Inc.'s Specified Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum annual area
Cumulative of zone included in
Zone proportions of Included quantiles the specific
simulated dens activities by SAE
(%) (km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................ 75 25th + 35th + 50th + 75th... 515
2........................................ 50 25th + 35th + 50th.......... 470
3........................................ 35 25th + 35th................. 220
4........................................ 25 25th........................ 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.019
Figure 2. Zones of Denning Density for Polar Bears Within the Potential
Survey Area for the Incidental Take Regulations for SAExploration,
Inc., on the North Slope of Alaska
[[Page 28533]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.020
Figure 3. High and Moderate Denning Density Zones for Polar Bears
Within the Potential Survey Area for the Incidental Take Regulations
for SAExploration, Inc., on the North Slope of Alaska
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
AIR Surveys
We assumed that all project and transit areas in the high denning
density zones would have at least three AIR surveys flown, all survey
and transit areas in moderate denning density zones would have at least
two AIR surveys flown, and everywhere outside of high or moderate
denning density zones would have at least one AIR survey flown (figure
3). When either one or two AIR surveys are needed, the first survey
would be flown between November 25 and December 25 and the second
survey would occur between December 15 and January 15. In an area where
three surveys are required, the third 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. Additionally, surveys would not be conducted during daytime or
times when weather conditions significantly hinder visibility (e.g.,
blowing snow, precipitation, or airborne moisture). A scientist with
experience in real-time aerial infrared interpretation would be onboard
during all flights and AIR survey videos would be made available to FWS
within 48 hours of survey completion.
During each iteration of the model, each AIR survey was randomly
assigned a probability of detecting dens. Whereas previous analyses
have used the results of Wilson and Durner (2020) to inform this
detection probability, two additional studies (Smith et al. 2020;
Woodruff et al. 2022b) have been conducted since the Wilson and Durner
(2020) study was published that require an updated approach. The study
by Woodruff et al. (2022b) considered the probability of detecting heat
signatures from artificial polar bear dens. They did not find a
relationship between den snow depth and detection and estimated a mean
detection rate of 0.24. A recent study by Smith et al. (2020) estimated
that the detection rate for actual polar bear dens in northern Alaska
was 0.45 and also did not report any relationship between detection and
den snow depth. Because the study by Wilson and Durner (2020) reported
detection probability only for dens with less than 100 centimeters (cm)
snow depth, we needed to correct our model to also include those dens
with greater than 100 cm snow depth. Based on the distribution of snow
depths used by Wilson and Durner (2020) derived from data in Durner et
al. (2003), we determined that 24 percent of dens have snow depths
greater than 100 cm. After taking this into account, we estimated the
overall detection probability from the Wilson and Durner (2020) study,
including dens with snow depths greater than 100 cm, to be 0.54. This
led to a mean detection of 0.41 and an SD of 0.15 across the three
studies. We used these values, and the method of moments (Hobbs and
Hooten 2015), to inform a Beta distribution:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.021
[[Page 28534]]
from which we drew a detection probability (p) for each of the
simulated AIR surveys during each iteration of the model.
Model Implementation
For each iteration of the model, we first determined which dens
were exposed to the specified activities. Dens that were simulated to
be within 805 m (2,641 ft) of human activity could be disturbed during
all denning periods, while dens within 806-1610 m (2,644-5,282 ft) of
human activity could only be disturbed during the den establishment,
late denning, and post-emergence periods. If a den was detected during
a simulated AIR survey, we excluded it from further disturbance in the
denning analysis. However, we allowed for simulated dens to be
disturbed before AIR occurred. We identified the stage in the denning
period when the exposure to human activity occurred based on the date
range of the activities the den was exposed to: den establishment
(i.e., initial entrance into den until cubs are born), early denning
(i.e., birth of cubs until they are 60 days old), late denning (i.e.,
date cubs are 60 days old until den emergence), and post-emergence
(i.e., the date of den emergence until permanent departure from the den
site). We then determined whether the exposure elicited a response by
the denning polar bear based on probabilities derived from the reviewed
case studies (Woodruff et al. 2022a), which we updated with data from
the dens monitored from 2022 to 2025 using the methods described in
Woodruff et al. (2022a).
Specifically, we divided the number of cases that documented
responses associated with either a Level B harassment (i.e., potential
to cause a disruption of behavioral patterns), Level A harassment
(i.e., potential to injure an animal), or lethal take (e.g., cub
abandonment) of polar bears by the total number of cases with that
combination of period and exposure type (table 5). Level B harassment
was applicable to both adults and cubs, if present, whereas Level A
harassment and lethal take were applicable to only cubs. We did not
consider AIR surveys to be a source of potential impact. In thousands
of hours of AIR surveys conducted in northern Alaska over the last
decade, we are not aware of a single instance of a polar bear
abandoning its den during the early denning period due to an AIR survey
overflight. These responses would be readily observable on the
aircraft's thermal cameras, and the fact that none have been observed
indicates that den abandonment very likely does not occur given the
brief duration of the aircraft overflight and the distance and altitude
of the aircraft from the den site. Recent peer-reviewed research
further supports the model assumption that AIR surveys are not a source
of harassment (Quigley et al. 2024).
For dens exposed to activity, we used a multinomial distribution
with the probabilities of different levels of take for that period
(table 5) to determine whether a den was disturbed or not. If a den
abandonment was simulated to occur, a den was not allowed to be
disturbed again during the subsequent denning periods because the
outcome of that denning event was already determined.
The level of impact associated with a disturbance varied according
to the severity and timing of the exposure (table 5). Exposures that
resulted in emergence from dens prior to cubs reaching 60 days of age
were considered a den abandonment that results in the lethal take of
cubs. If an exposure resulted in a Level A harassment during the late
denning period, we first assigned that den a new random emergence date
from a uniform distribution that ranged between the first date of
exposure during the late denning period and the original den emergence
date. We then determined whether that den was disturbed during the
post-emergence period, but the probability of disturbance was dependent
on whether or not a den was disturbed (i.e., Level A harassment) during
the late denning period (table 5). If an exposure resulted in a Level A
harassment during the post-emergence period, we assigned the den a new
time spent at the den site post-emergence from a uniform distribution
that ranged from zero to the original simulated time at the den post-
emergence.
Recent research suggests that litter survival is related to the
date of den emergence and time spent at the den post-emergence
(Andersen et al. 2024), with litters having higher survival rates the
later they emerge in the spring, and the longer they spend at the den
site after emergence. To determine if dens that were disturbed during
the late denning and/or post-emergence period(s) experienced Level A
harassment, we relied on estimates of litter survival in the spring
following den emergence, derived from the analysis of empirical data on
the dates of emergence from the den and departure from the den site
(Andersen et al. 2024). These estimates are dependent on the date of
emergence and time spent at the den site post-emergence. For each den
disturbed during the late denning and/or post-emergence periods, we
obtained a random sample of regression coefficients from the posterior
distribution and calculated the probability of a litter surviving into
the spring post-emergence with the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.022
Where:
s is the probability of at least one cub being alive in the spring
post-emergence,
[beta]<INF>0</INF> is the intercept coefficient,
[beta]<INF>1</INF> is the coefficient associated with the Julian
date of emergence (emerge), and
[beta]<INF>2</INF> is the coefficient associated with the number of
days the family group stayed at the den site post-emergence before
departing (depart).
These probabilities are based on estimates of litter survival
derived from the analysis of empirical data on the dates of emergence
from the den and departure from the den site (Andersen et al. 2024).
We developed the code to run this model in the program R (R Core
Development Team 2020) and ran 10,000 iterations of the model (i.e.,
Monte Carlo simulation) to derive the estimated number of dens
disturbed and associated levels of harassment. We then determined the
number of cubs that would experience den abandonment, Level A
harassment, and Level B harassment, and the number of females that
would experience Level B harassment. Table 5 shows the probability of
an exposure resulting in the types of harassment of denning polar
bears.
[[Page 28535]]
Table 5--Probability That an Exposure Elicited a Response by Denning Polar Bears That Would Result in Level B
Harassment, Level A Harassment, Den Abandonment, or No Take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Den
Denning period None (sow or Level B Level B Level A abandonment
cub(s)) (sow) (cub(s)) (cub(s)) (cub(s))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Den Establishment............................. 0.818 0.182 0.000 0.000 0.000
Early Denning................................. 0.941 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.059
Late Denning.................................. 0.711 0.289 0.000 0.289 0.000
Post Emergence-Previously Undisturbed Den..... 0.000 1.000 0.280 0.720 0.000
Post Emergence-Previously Disturbed Den....... 0.000 1.000 0.700 0.300 0.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Level B harassment was applicable to both adults and cubs, if present; Level A harassment and lethal take
were applicable to cubs only and were not possible during the den establishment period, which ended with the
birth of the cubs. During the early denning period, there was no Level A harassment for cubs, only lethal
take. We provide two sets of take probabilities for the post-emergence period. The first (Post Emergence-
Previously Undisturbed Den) is the set of probabilities when a den has not been disturbed during the late
denning period. The second (Post Emergence-Previously Disturbed Den) is the set of probabilities for a den
that was disturbed during the late denning period (Rode et al. 2018; Andersen et al. 2024).
Model Results
We created multiple scenarios in our analysis by generating a
variety of combinations of the different confidential survey blocks
while adhering to the previously described maximum area of impact
within each of the four zones (see Den Simulation). We used the results
of the scenario with the highest level of impact for our estimation of
annual harassment. We estimated a rounded mean value of 5 (mean = 4.36;
median = 4; 95 percent CI: 1-10) land-based dens in the area of
specified activity in SAE's request and within a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer
of the activities, annually. Estimates for different levels of take are
presented in table 6. The distributions of Level B harassment, Level A
harassment, and 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.
The median number, which is the midpoint value of a frequency
distribution of all model results, of Level B and Level A harassments
is both two, and the median number of lethal takes is zero. The
probability of one or more takes of denning polar bears occurring in
any given year of the proposed ITR by Level B harassment, Level A
harassment, or lethal take was 0.73, 0.64, and 0.10, respectively.
However, in aggregate across all 5 years of the proposed ITR, the
median value for takes of denning polar bears by Level B harassment and
by Level A harassment were 11 and 8 respectively.
The median value for lethal take in aggregate remained zero. The
probabilities of one or more takes of denning polar bears occurring
across the entire 5-year duration of this proposed ITR by Level B
harassment, Level A harassment, and lethal take were 0.99, 0.99, and
0.35, respectively. Our estimated number of possibly exposed dens in
the area across all 5-years was 19 (mean = 18.99; median = 19, 95
percent CI: 10-30). The activities analyzed for this proposed ITR
represent the maximum number of activities that may occur within each
year of the 5-year ITR period. Therefore, the actual activity footprint
will likely be smaller during each year, which would reduce the
probability of take. Due to the low probability of one or more lethal
takes occurring either annually (0.09) or in 5-year aggregate (0.35),
along with a median value of zero for either time period, we do not
anticipate the specified activities will result in lethal take of polar
bears. Additionally, mitigation measures, such as the use of handheld
and vehicle-mounted forward looking infrared cameras when SAE crews are
traversing areas of relief and snow drifts, will be implemented to
further reduce the probability of take and minimize impacts to denning
polar bears.
Table 6--Results of the Den Analysis for Any Given Winter of Specified Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of take Probability Mean Median 95% CI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment...................................... 0.73 2.84 2 1-11
Level A harassment...................................... 0.64 2.11 2 0-10
Lethal.................................................. 0.09 0.17 0 0-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates are provided for the probability, mean, median, and 95% CI for Level B harassment, Level A
harassment, and Lethal take. The probabilities represent the probability of >=1 take of a polar bear occurring
during a given winter.
Critical Assumptions
In order to conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount
of Level B harassment and Level A harassment, we made several critical
assumptions.
Level B harassment is equated herein with behavioral responses that
indicate harassment or disturbance, however some portion of animals
whose behavioral response indicates disturbance will not experience
significant biological consequences. Our estimates do not account for
variable responses by polar bear age and sex; however, sensitivity of
denning polar bears was incorporated into the analysis. The available
information suggests that polar bears are generally resilient to low
levels of disturbance. Females with dependent young and juvenile polar
bears are physiologically the most sensitive (Andersen and Aars 2008)
and most likely to experience harassment from disturbance. Not enough
information on composition of the SBS polar bear stock in the specified
project area is available to incorporate individual variability based
on age and sex or to predict its influence on harassment estimates. Our
estimates are derived from a variety of sample populations with various
age and sex structures, and we assume the exposed population will have
a similar composition and, therefore, the response rates are
applicable.
[[Page 28536]]
The estimates of behavioral response presented here do not account
for the individual movements of animals in response to the specified
activities. Our assessment assumes animals remain stationary (i.e.,
density does not change). Not enough information is available about the
movement of polar bears in response to specific disturbances to refine
this assumption.
SBS polar bears create maternal dens on the sea ice as well as on
land, and the specified activities may occur on sea ice close to the
shoreline. The den simulation used in our analysis does not simulate
dens on the sea ice. However, the portions of the sea ice that may be
impacted by the specified activities are shore-fast ice, which does not
move in a way that creates pressure ridges needed to create sufficient
denning habitat.
Sum of Harassment From All Sources
SAE will conduct archeological surveys, AIR surveys for maternal
polar bear dens, seismic surveys, and summer cleanup activities on the
North Slope of Alaska for a period of 5 years. A summary of total
number of estimated takes by Level B harassment and Level A harassment
in any given single year of the total 5-year proposed authorization
period is provided in table 5. We used the most impactful take
scenarios when generating annual take estimates to provide conservative
values. We also explored the potential for lethal take. Lethal take or
Level A harassment would not occur outside of 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. The probability of greater than or equal to one lethal
take of denning polar bears is 0.16 under the most impactful operations
scenario in a single year. In addition to annual estimates of take, we
estimated the amount and probability of take aggregated across the 5-
year period of this proposed ITR. The total 5-year aggregate estimates
are provided in table 8. Across the 5-year period of the proposed ITR,
the probability of greater than or equal to one lethal take of polar
bears is 0.35.
Table 7--Total Annual Estimated Takes by Level B and Level A Harassment
of Polar Bears by Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Level B Number of Level A
Source harassment events harassment events
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Interactions.......... 5 0
Impacts to Denning Bears...... 2 2
Aircraft Overflights.......... 6 0
-----------------------------------------
Annual Total.............. 13 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimated takes are provided for single-year operations under most
impactful scenarios.
Evaluation of Impacts of Oil Spills on Polar Bears
The specified activities evaluated here do not involve production
and transportation of large quantities of oil. The FWS previously
evaluated the impacts of oil spills on SBS polar bears in the specified
geographic region and concluded that only small numbers of polar bears
are likely to be affected if a large oil spill occurred and there would
be only a negligible impact to the SBS polar bears (2021-2026 Beaufort
Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021)). Additionally, SAE will
implement protocols to contain and cleanup spills from oil, fuel, and
other hazardous materials to minimize potential impacts to polar bears
and their habitat. Therefore, the FWS concludes that the likelihood of
a large oil spill occurring due to the specified activities is
negligible. If a small spill occurs, the likelihood that it would
contaminate areas occupied by large numbers of polar bears is low. If
an oil spill does occur, we conclude that only small numbers of polar
bears are likely to be affected, and there would be only a negligible
impact to SBS polar bears.
Table 8--Total 5-Year Aggregated Estimated Takes by Level B and Level A
Harassment of Polar Bears by Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Level B Number of Level A
Source harassment events harassment events
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Interactions.......... 25 0
Impacts to Denning Bears...... 11 8
Aircraft Overflights.......... 30 0
-----------------------------------------
5-year aggregated total... 66 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determinations and Findings
Small Numbers
For our small numbers determination, we provide a qualitative
discussion and incidental take estimates when we consider whether the
number of polar bears to be subjected to incidental take is
respectively small relative to the population size of the species or
stock.
1. The footprint of the specified activities within the specified
geographic region is small relative to the range of the SBS stock of
polar bears. 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 SBS polar bear
populations may be present in the specified geographic region during
the time of the specified activities.
2. We estimate SAE's specified activities in the specified
geographic region will take no more than 15 polar bears during any
given year of this proposed ITR, which includes the annual estimated
Level B harassment of
[[Page 28537]]
11 polar bears on the surface and 2 denning polar bears and Level A
harassment of 2 denning polar bears, and no more than a total of 66
polar bears by Level B harassment and 8 polar bears by Level A
harassment over the five-year duration of this ITR (see Sum of
Harassment from All Sources). Annual take of 15 animals is
approximately 1.7 percent of the best available estimate of the current
SBS stock size of 907 animals (Bromaghin et al. 2015, 2021; Atwood
2020) and represents a ``small number'' of polar bears of that 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, 15 bears constitute 1.8 percent of the SBS
stock. These estimates indicate that the number of polar bears that
would be incidentally taken is small relative to the size of the SBS
stock.
Small Numbers Conclusion
We propose a finding that take of up to 15 SBS polar bears in any
given year by Level B harassment, with a total 74 SBS polar bears in
aggregate across the 5-year duration (66 by Level B harassment and 8 by
Level A harassment) of this proposed ITR represents a small number of
the SBS polar bear stock.
Negligible Impact
For our negligible impacts determination, we consider the
following:
1. The documented impacts of previous activities similar to the
specified activities on polar bears, and, taking into consideration the
baseline of existing impacts from factors such as oil and gas
activities in the area and other ongoing or proposed incidental take
authorizations, suggest that the types of specified activities will
have minimal effects on polar bears. Additionally, the effects will be
limited to short-term, temporary behavioral changes, or minor injury.
Furthermore, our analyses do not indicate, nor do we anticipate, any
lethal take of polar bears during the 5-year period of this proposed
ITR. While we do estimate that up to two cubs may experience a short-
term fitness decline in the period immediately following den departure,
we also do not anticipate that they will experience long lasting
impacts that could significantly impact their health, reproduction, or
survival. The limited extent of anticipated impacts on polar bears is
unlikely to adversely affect annual rates of polar bear survival or
recruitment.
2. The distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears
indicate that relatively few polar bears will occur in the specified
areas of activity at any time and, therefore, few polar bears are
likely to be affected.
3. SAE has proposed, and would be required to implement, mitigation
measures and monitoring designed to reduce the potential impacts of
their operations on polar bears. Den detection surveys for polar bears,
along with adaptive mitigation and management responses based on real-
time monitoring information (described in this proposed authorization),
will be used to avoid or minimize interactions with polar bears and,
therefore, limit potential disturbance of these species.
We also consider the conjectural or speculative impacts associated
with these specified activities. The specific congressional direction
described below justifies balancing the probability of such impacts
with their severity: If potential effects of a specified activity are
conjectural or speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be
appropriate. A finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if
the probability of occurrence is low, but the potential effects may be
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts
must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species or
stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this balancing
test, the FWS will thoroughly evaluate the risks involved and the
potential impacts on marine mammal populations. Such determination will
be made based on the best available scientific information (54 FR
40338, September 29, 1989, quoting 53 FR 8473, March 15, 1988, and 132
Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 1986)).
We reviewed the effects of the seismic exploration activities on
polar bears, including impacts from surface interactions, aircraft
overflights, and den disturbance. Based on our review of these
potential impacts, past monitoring reports, and the biology and natural
history of polar bears, we conclude that any incidental take reasonably
likely to occur as a result of specified activities will be limited to
short-term behavioral disturbances that would not affect the rates of
recruitment or survival for the SBS stock of polar bears.
The potential effects of most concern here, specific to polar
bears, is the mortality of polar bear cubs that could result from
disturbances during certain periods of the denning season. The FWS
estimated that the probability of greater than or equal to one lethal
take is 0.09 annually and 0.35 across the 5-year duration of this
proposed ITR. Therefore, the FWS does not anticipate any lethal take
will occur during the ITR period. If a den is disturbed and lethal take
were to occur, this take would be limited to only cubs during the
denning period. Impacts to denning females, the demographic group most
important to annual recruitment, are limited to take by Level B or
Level A harassment. Therefore, the number of potentially available
reproductive females that would contribute to recruitment for the SBS
stock would remain unaffected if a den disturbance were to result in
the mortality of the cubs.
Cub mortality occurs naturally each year. Cub litter survival was
estimated at 50 percent (90 percent CI: 33-67 percent) for the SBS
stock during 2001-2006 (Regehr et al. 2010), indicating a female may
lose her litter for several reasons separate from den disturbance. The
SBS stock of polar bears is currently estimated as 907 polar bears
(Bromaghin et al. 2015, 2021; Atwood et al. 2020). The loss of one
litter ranges from 0 percent (0 cubs) to approximately 0.33 percent (3
cubs) of the annual SBS stock size of polar bears (((0 cubs to 3 cubs)
/907) x 100[ap]0 to 0.33). The determining factor for polar bear stock
growth is adult female survival (Eberhardt 1990). Consequently, the
loss of female cubs has a greater impact on annual recruitment rates
for the SBS stock of polar bears compared to male cubs. If a den
disturbance were to result in the mortality of the entire litter, the
female would be available to breed during the next mating season and
could produce another litter during the next denning season.
Based on the projection that zero cub mortality would be associated
with these specified activities, and the recognition that even if a den
is disturbed, the number of potentially affected cubs would be minimal
and the number of reproductive females in the stock would remain the
same, the FWS does not anticipate that the conjectural or speculative
impacts associated with these specified activities warrant a finding of
non-negligible impact or otherwise preclude issuance of this proposed
ITR.
We have evaluated the effects of climate change on polar bears as
part of the environmental baseline. 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,
[[Page 28538]]
we will incorporate the information in future authorizations.
We find that the impacts of these specified activities cannot be
reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect SBS polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment
or survival. Therefore, the FWS proposes that the total of the taking
estimated above and proposed for authorization will have a negligible
impact on SBS polar bears.
Impact on Subsistence Use
Based on past community consultations, locations of hunting areas,
no anticipated overlap of hunting areas and the specified activities,
and the best scientific information available, including monitoring
data from similar activities, we propose a finding that take caused by
the specified seismic exploration activities in the specified
geographic region will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of polar bears for taking for subsistence uses during the
specified timeframe.
While polar bears represent a small portion, in terms of the number
of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the Kaktovik and
Nuiqsut communities, the harvest of these species is important to
Alaska Natives. SAE will contact subsistence communities that may be
affected by its activities to discuss potential conflicts caused by
location, timing, and methods of the specified activities. SAE will
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, SAE's POC, which will
identify measures to minimize any adverse effects, will be implemented.
The POC will ensure that the specified activities will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock
for subsistence uses. The POC provides the procedures addressing how
SAE will work with the affected Alaska Native communities and what
actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of
polar bears, as warranted.
The FWS has not received any reports and is not aware of
information that indicates that polar bears are being or will be
deterred from hunting areas or impacted in any way that diminishes
their availability for subsistence use by the expected level of seismic
exploration activity. If there is evidence that these activities are
affecting the availability of polar bears for subsistence uses, we will
reevaluate our findings regarding permissible limits of take and the
measures required to ensure continued subsistence hunting
opportunities.
Least Practicable Adverse Impacts
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. We
propose a finding that the mitigation measures included within SAE's
request will ensure least practicable adverse impacts on polar bears.
Polar bear den surveys at the beginning of each well survey season,
the resulting 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone around all known
polar bear dens, and restrictions on the timing and types of activities
in the vicinity of dens and females with cubs of the year observed
during the den emergence period will ensure that impacts to denning
females and their cubs are minimized during this critical period.
Minimum flight elevations over polar bear areas and flight restrictions
around observed polar bears and known polar bear dens will reduce the
potential for aircraft disturbing polar bears. Finally, SAE will
implement mitigation measures to prevent the presence and impact of
attractants in camps such as the use of wildlife-resistant waste
receptacles, daily food waste incineration, and storing hazardous
materials in drums or other secure containers. These measures are
outlined in a polar bear interaction plan that was developed in
coordination with the FWS and is part of SAE's application for this
ITR. Based on the information we currently have regarding den and
aircraft disturbance and polar bear attractants, we concluded that the
mitigation measures outlined in SAE's Request (SAE 2025) and
incorporated into this proposed authorization will minimize impacts
from the specified seismic exploration activities to the extent
practicable.
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 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--Some
restrictions on weather conditions for AIR surveys were included as
mitigation measures; however, additional restrictions would not be
practicable for the specified activities due to the available timeframe
to complete AIR surveys to affect the least practicable adverse impact
on polar bears.
<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 unless
there is an emergency.
<bullet> Require speed restrictions for aircraft operations--
Requiring 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.
<bullet> Spatial and temporal restrictions on surface activity--
Some spatial and temporal restrictions of operations were included in
SAE's Request; however, additional restrictions would not be
practicable for the specified activities based on other regulatory and
safety requirements, and the need to acquire enough data to meet
project objectives.
<bullet> One-mile buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat--One-mile (1.6-km) buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat is not practicable as much of SAE'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 surveys
from occurring.
<bullet> Prohibit driving over high relief areas, embankments, or
stream and river crossings--In their request, SAE has committed to
avoiding the leeward side of river banks and bluffs, where snow can
accumulate and create polar bear denning habitat. Additionally, SAE
would use handheld or truck-mounted infrared units to check of polar
bears or dens prior to crossing suitable habitat and will place all
river crossing at the lowest possible relief point to reduce
[[Page 28539]]
the possibility of suitable denning habitat being present. 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 during 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 USGS.
<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 proposed ITR area would
be highly speculative. Therefore, no mitigative benefit would be
realized by their establishment.
<bullet> Require third-party neutral marine mammal observers--SAE
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 cease if a polar bear is injured
or killed until an investigation is completed--The FWS has incorporated
into this proposed authorization reporting requirements for all polar
bear interactions. While 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 prospectively.
<bullet> Require use of den detection dogs--Requiring scent-trained
dogs to detect dens is not practicable or safe for this project due to
the large spatial extent that would need to be surveyed within seismic
survey areas. Additional crew may require additional transit vehicles
and accommodations, which could increase disturbance to polar bears.
<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 facilities
is not practicable due to the short-term and relatively mobile project
activities and temporary facilities. SAE 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 surveys have
been found to be four times more likely to detect dens versus ground-
based forward-looking infrared (handheld or vehicle-mounted) equipment
due to impacts of blowing snow on detection. SAE has incorporated into
their mitigation measures the use of handheld or vehicle-mounted
forward-looking infrared units 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 1--While SAE has
committed to prioritizing cleanup in coastal areas first to complete
them prior to July 1, the overall timing of cleanup activities is
dependent upon snow-free conditions, which vary yearly and may not
occur before July 1.
Monitoring and Reporting
The purpose of monitoring requirements is to assess the effects of
the specified activities on polar bears, continual verification of ITR
compliance, ensure take does not have more than a negligible impact on
species stocks, and detect any unanticipated effects on the species or
stock. Monitoring plans document when and how polar bears are observed,
the number of polar bears, and their behavior during the observation.
This information allows the FWS to measure encounter rates, examine
trends in polar bear activity and distribution in the industrial areas,
and estimate the number of polar bears potentially affected by
industrial activities. SAE would report all observations of polar
bears. To the extent possible, personnel that encounter polar bears
will record group size, age, sex, behavior, duration of observation,
and closest approach to human activity.
The FWS would provide SAE with the most recent and up-to-date Polar
Bear Observation Form in which to record observations of polar bears.
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#4d2b3a7a12202020123f283d223f393e0d2b3a3e632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="127465254d7f7f7f4d6077627d606661527465613c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>. Details on monitoring guidelines and reporting
requirements can be read below in the rule portion of this document in
proposed Sec. 18.172 Monitoring and Sec. 18.173 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).
Clarity of This Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 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.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance
with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily concluded
that the proposed action of issuing an ITR would not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment, and, thus, preparation of
[[Page 28540]]
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 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. These evaluations and findings would be
made available on the FWS's website at <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/biological-opinion">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/biological-opinion</a>.
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 Executive Order
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. We have evaluated possible effects of the specified activities
on federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and organizations. Through
the ITR process identified in the MMPA, the applicant has presented a
communication process, culminating in a POC if needed, with the 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--Executive Orders 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 proposed 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. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
OIRA bases its determination of significance upon the following
four criteria: (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100
million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government;
(b) whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions; (c) whether the rule will materially affect
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients; and (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 archeological surveys, AIR
maternal polar bear den surveys, seismic surveys, and aircraft-
supported cleanup 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 archeological surveys, AIR maternal polar bear den surveys,
seismic surveys, and aircraft-supported cleanup 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
We have 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
We have 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.).
SAE and their contractors conducting archeological survey, AIR maternal
polar bear den surveys, seismic surveys, and summer cleanup activities
on the North Slope 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 Executive Order 12630 because it authorizes the
incidental, but not intentional, take of polar bears by seismic
exploration activities and, thereby, exempts SAE from civil and
criminal liability as long as they operate in compliance with the terms
of their LOAs. Therefore, a takings implications assessment is not
required.
Federalism Effects
This proposed rule, if finalized, does not contain policies with
federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a
federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. The MMPA gives the
FWS the authority and responsibility to protect polar bears.
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
[[Page 28541]]
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 Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains new information collections subject to
approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 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.
We are requesting a new control number for the information collection
requirements in this subpart. 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).
In accordance with the PRA and its implementing regulations at 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal
agencies with an opportunity to comment on our proposal to request OMB
approval of the information collections in this proposed rule. This
helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements
and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public
understand our information collection requirements and provide the
requested data in the desired format.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we invite the
public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this
proposed information collection, including:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection
of information, including the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of response.
Comments that you submit in response to this proposed rulemaking
are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including
your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available
at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your
personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This is a nonform collection. Respondents must comply with the
regulations at 50 CFR 18.27, which outline the procedures and
requirements for submitting a request. These regulations provide the
applicant with a detailed description of information that we need to
evaluate the proposed activity and determine if it is appropriate to
issue specific regulations and, subsequently, LOAs. The FWS's proposed
rule (RIN 1018-BG75) would create a new subpart, 50 CFR part 18,
subpart N (SAExploration, Inc., valid for a period of 5 years), which
addresses the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar
bears (Ursus maritimus) during seismic exploration activities on the
North Slope of Alaska.
We will use the information collected to verify the findings
required to issue incidental take regulations, to decide if we should
issue an LOA, and (if an LOA is issued) what conditions should be
included in the LOA. In addition, we will analyze the information to
determine impacts to polar bears, and the availability of those marine
mammals for subsistence purposes of Alaska Natives.
The information collections contained in the newly proposed subpart
N described below require approval by OMB:
(1) Application For Regulations (50 CFR 18.27(d))--Regulations at
50 CFR part 18 require the applicant to provide information on the
activity as a whole, which includes, but is not limited to, an
assessment of total impacts by all persons conducting the activity.
Applicants can find specific requirements in 50 CFR part 18, subparts
N. These regulations provide the applicant with a detailed description
of information that we need to evaluate the proposed activity and
determine whether to issue specific regulations and, subsequently,
LOAs. The required information includes:
<bullet> A description of the specific activity or class of
activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of
marine mammals.
<bullet> The dates and duration of such activity and the specific
geographical region where it will occur.
<bullet> Based on the best available scientific information, each
applicant must also provide:
--An estimate of the species and numbers of marine mammals likely to be
taken by age, sex, and reproductive conditions;
--The type of taking (e.g., disturbance by sound, injury or death
resulting from collision, etc.) and the number of times such taking is
likely to occur;
--A description of the status, distribution, and seasonal distribution
(when applicable) of the affected species or stocks likely to be
affected by such activities;
--The anticipated impact of the activity upon the species or stocks;
and
--The anticipated impact of the activity on the availability of the
species or stocks for subsistence uses.
<bullet> The anticipated impact of the activity upon the habitat of
the marine mammal populations and the likelihood of restoration of the
affected habitat.
<bullet> The availability and feasibility (economic and
technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks, their habitat, and, where
relevant, on their availability for subsistence uses, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance. (The applicant and those conducting the specified
activity and the affected subsistence users are encouraged to develop
mutually agreeable mitigating measures that will meet the needs of
subsistence users.)
<bullet> Suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in increased knowledge
[[Page 28542]]
of the species through an analysis of the level of taking or impacts
and suggested means of minimizing burdens by coordinating such
reporting requirements with other schemes already applicable to persons
conducting such activity.
<bullet> Suggested means of learning of, encouraging, and
coordinating research opportunities, plans, and activities relating to
reducing such incidental taking from such specified activities, and
evaluating its effects.
<bullet> Applicants must develop and implement a site-specific (or
umbrella plan addressing site-specific considerations), FWS-approved
marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor and evaluate
the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the effects of activities
on marine mammals and the subsistence use of these species.
<bullet> Applicants must also provide trained, qualified, and FWS-
approved onsite observers to carry out monitoring and mitigation
activities identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation
plan.
This information is necessary so that we can anticipate the impact
of the activity on the species or stocks and on the availability of the
species or stocks for subsistence uses. Under requirements of the MMPA,
we cannot authorize a take unless the total of all takes will have a
negligible impact on the species or stocks and, where appropriate, will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stocks for subsistence uses. These requirements ensure that
applicants are aware of related monitoring and research efforts they
can apply to their situation, and that the monitoring and reporting
that we impose are the least burdensome to the applicant.
(2) Final Monitoring Report (50 CFR 172(c))--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 (or annual) report must include, but
is not limited to:
<bullet> Copies of all observation reports submitted under the LOA;
<bullet> A summary of the observation reports;
<bullet> A summary of monitoring and mitigation efforts including
areas, total hours, total distances, and distribution;
<bullet> Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and
detectability of polar bears during monitoring;
<bullet> Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
<bullet> Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of
polar bears observed; and
<bullet> Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
(3) Requests for Letters of Authorization (LOA) (50 CFR 18.27(f)
and 18.167)--LOAs, which may be issued only to U.S. citizens, are
required to conduct activities pursuant to any specific regulations
established. Once specific regulations are effective, the FWS will, to
the maximum extent possible, process subsequent requests for LOAs
within 30 days after receipt of the request by the FWS. All LOAs will
specify the period of validity and any additional terms and conditions
appropriate for the specific request. Issuance of LOAs will be based on
a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific
regulations.
(4) Polar Bear Den Detection Report (50 CFR 18.170(b)(1)(iv))--
Holders of an LOA seeking to carry out onshore activities in known or
suspected polar bear denning habitat during the denning season must
make efforts to locate occupied polar bear dens within and near
proposed areas of operation. They may use any appropriate tool, such as
forward-looking infrared imagery and/or polar bear scent-trained dogs,
in concert with denning habitat maps along the Alaskan coast. In
accordance with 50 CFR 18.172(b)(1) and (b)(2), LOA holders must report
all observed or suspected polar bear dens to us prior to the initiation
of activities. We use this information to determine the appropriate
terms and conditions in an individual LOA in order to minimize
potential impacts and disturbance to polar bears.
Holders of an LOA seeking to carry out onshore activities during
the denning season (November-April) must conduct one to three separate
surveys for occupied polar bear dens in all denning habitat within 1.6
km (1 mi) of proposed activities using aerial infrared (AIR) imagery.
Project areas located in high denning density zones must be AIR
surveyed at least three times, project areas in moderate denning
density zones must be AIR surveyed at least twice, and anywhere outside
of either the moderate or high denning density zones must be AIR
surveys at least once. When either one or two AIR surveys are needed
the first survey must be flown between November 25 and December 25 and
the second survey occurring between December 15 and January 15. In an
area where three surveys are required, the additional survey must occur
between December 5 and December 31. A minimum of 24 hours is required
between completion of previous AIR survey and beginning a new AIR
survey.
Flight crews will record and report environmental parameters
including air temperature, 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.
(5) Onsite Monitoring and Observation Reports--The regulations also
require that each holder of an LOA submit a monitoring report
indicating the nature and extent of all takes of marine mammals that
occurred incidentally to the specific activity. Since the inception of
incidental take authorizations for polar bears (Ursus maritimus),
Pacific walruses (walruses) (Odobenus rosmarus divergens), and northern
sea otters (otters) (Enhydra lutris kenyoni), we have required
monitoring and reporting during oil and gas industry activities. The
purpose of monitoring and reporting requirements is to assess the
effects of industrial activities on polar bears, walruses, and otters
to ensure that take is minimal to marine mammal populations, and to
detect any unanticipated effects of take. The monitoring focus has been
site-specific, area-specific, or population-specific. Site-specific
monitoring measures animal-human encounter rates, outcomes of
encounters, and trends of animal activity in the industrial areas, such
as polar bear numbers, behavior, and seasonal use. Area-specific
monitoring includes analyzing animal spatial and temporal use trends,
sex/age composition, and risk assessment to unpredictable events, such
as oil spills. Population-specific monitoring includes investigating
species' life-history parameters, such as population size, recruitment,
survival, physical condition, status, and mortality.
A. In-Season Monitoring (Activity Progress Reports) (50 CFR
18.172(a)(1))--Activity progress reports. Holders of an LOA must:
<bullet> Notify the FWS at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
<bullet> Provide the FWS weekly progress reports of any significant
changes in activities and/or locations; and
<bullet> Notify the FWS within 48 hours after ending of activities.
B. In-Season Monitoring (Polar Bear Observation Reports) (50 CFR
18.172(a)(2))--Holders of an LOA must
[[Page 28543]]
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:
<bullet> Date, time, and location of observation;
<bullet> Number of bears;
<bullet> Sex and age of bears (if known);
<bullet> Observer name and contact information;
<bullet> Weather, visibility, sea state, and sea-ice conditions at
the time of observation;
<bullet> Estimated closest distance of bears from personnel and
facilities;
<bullet> Industry activity at time of sighting;
<bullet> Possible attractants present;
<bullet> Bear behavior;
<bullet> Description of the encounter;
<bullet> Duration of the encounter; and
<bullet> Mitigation actions taken.
(6) Notification of LOA Incident Report (50 CFR 18.172(b))--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 when specified activities exceed the authority of an LOA,
when a mitigation measure was required but not enacted, or when injury
or death of a marine mammal occurs. Reports must include:
<bullet> All information specified for an observation report;
<bullet> A complete detailed description of the incident; and
<bullet> Any other actions taken.
(7) Mitigation--Interaction Plan (50 CFR 18.170(a)(3) and 50 CFR
18.167(c)(4))--All holders of an LOA must have an approved polar bear
safety, awareness, and interaction plan on file with the FWS's Marine
Mammals Management Office and onsite and provide polar bear awareness
training to certain personnel. Interaction plans must include:
<bullet> The type of activity and where and when the activity will
occur (i.e., a summary of the plan of operation);
<bullet> A food, waste, and other ``bear attractants'' management
plan;
<bullet> Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
<bullet> Site-specific polar bear interaction risk evaluation and
mitigation measures;
<bullet> Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
<bullet> Polar bear observation and reporting procedures.
(8) Mitigation--3rd--Party Notifications (50 CFR 18.170(d)(1))--All
applicants for an LOA must contact affected subsistence communities and
hunter organizations to discuss potential conflicts caused by the
activities and provide the FWS documentation of communications as
described in Sec. 18.167.
(9) Mitigation--Plan of Cooperation (50 CFR 18.170(d)(2))--When
appropriate, a holder of an LOA will be required to develop and
implement a FWS-approved plan of cooperation (POC). The POC must
include a description of the procedures by which 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 polar bears
and to ensure continued availability of the species for subsistence
use. 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 POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on the availability of polar bears for
subsistence use.
(10) Community Consultation (50 CFR 18.170(d)(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 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 this
species, the applicant must address conflict avoidance issues through a
POC.
Title of Collection: Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During
Specified Activities, 50 CFR 18.27 and 50 CFR part 18, subpart N.
OMB Control Number: 1018-New.
Form Numbers: None.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals/households, private sector
(oil and gas industry companies), State/local/Tribal governments, and
Federal Government.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion for applications; annually or
on occasion for reports.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $50,000 (associated
with the polar bear den detection survey and report).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Total
Number of Number of Total completion annual
Type of action annual responses annual time burden
respondents each responses (hours) hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Take of Marine Mammals--Application
for Regulations (50 CFR Sec. 18.27(d)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 20 150
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 130
Final Monitoring Report (50 CFR Sec.
18.172(c)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 6 22
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 16
Requests--Letters of Authorization (50 CFR Sec.
18.27(f) and 18.167):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 6 22
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 16
Polar Bear Den Detection Report (50 CFR
18.170(b)(1)(iv)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 8 50
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 42
In-season Monitoring--Activity Progress Reports
(50 CFR 18.172(a)(1)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 .5 1
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. .5
In-season Monitoring--Polar Bear Observation
Reports (50 CFR 18.172(a)(2)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 10 1 10 .25 13
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 1
[[Page 28544]]
Notification of LOA Incident Report (50 CFR
18.172(b) and 18.170(a)(3)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 .25 1
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. .5
Mitigation--Interaction Plan (50 CFR
18.170(a)(3) and 18.167(c)(4)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 2 8
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 6
Mitigation--(Amendment) Interaction Plan (50
CFR 18.170(a)(3) and 18.167(c)(4)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 1 4
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 3
Mitigation--3rd Party Notifications (50 CFR
18.170(d)(1)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 3 1 3 1 6
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 1
Mitigation--Plan of Cooperation (50 CFR
18.170(d)(2)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 10 40
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 30
Mitigation--(Amendment) Plan of Cooperation (50
CFR 18.170(d)(2)(ii)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 5 20
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 15
Community Consultation (50 CFR 18.170(d)(1)):
Reporting--Private Sector.................. 1 1 1 10 40
Recordkeeping--Private Sector.............. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................. 24 ........... 24 ........... 341
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send your written comments and suggestions on this information
collection by the date indicated in DATES to OMB, with a copy to the
FWS Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: PRB/PERMA (JAO), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803 (mail); or by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b02252d2414082427270b2d3c38652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="165f7870794955797a7a5670616538717960">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference
``1018-New/1018-BG75) in the subject line of your comments.
Energy Effects
Executive Order 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 seismic exploration activities in the specified
geographic region. By providing certainty regarding compliance with the
MMPA, this proposed rule will have a positive effect on the seismic
exploration activities. Although the proposed rule requires an
applicant to take a number of actions, these actions have been
undertaken by seismic exploration 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.
References
For a list of the references cited in this proposed rule, see
Docket No FWS-R7-ES-2023-0086, 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.
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 adding and reserving subpart M and adding subpart
N. These additions read as follows.
Subpart M [Reserved]
Subpart N--Taking of Polar Bears Incidental to Seismic Survey
Exploration Activities on the North Slope of Alaska
18.164 Specified activities covered by this subpart.
18.165 Specified geographic region where this subpart applies.
18.166 Dates this subpart is in effect.
18.167 Procedure to obtain a letter of authorization (LOA).
18.168 Authorized take allowed under an LOA.
18.169 Prohibited take under an LOA.
18.170 Mitigation.
18.171 Monitoring.
18.172 Reporting requirements.
18.173 Information collection requirements.
Sec. 18.164 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 entities
while engaged in seismic exploration surveys and associated activities
on the North Slope 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. 18.167 may
request an LOA pursuant to the regulations in this subpart.
[[Page 28545]]
Sec. 18.165 Specified geographic region where this subpart applies.
This subpart applies to the area where the seismic exploration
activities will occur in Alaska and includes the specified geographic
region that extends from the Colville River (150.85[deg] W) in the west
to the Canning River (145.98[deg] W) in the east and south
approximately 40 km (25 mi) inland. Figure 1 shows the area where this
subpart applies.
Figure 1 to Sec. 18.165--Map of the North Slope, Alaska, Region Where
The Activities Covered by This Subpart Will Occur
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY26.023
Sec. 18.166 Dates this subpart is in effect.
The regulations in this subpart are effective until June 30, 2031.
Sec. 18.167 Procedure to obtain a letter of authorization (LOA).
(a) An applicant for an LOA under the regulations in this subpart
must be from:
(1) SAExploration, Inc.;
(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 applicant must submit the request for an LOA to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 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 specified activity.
(c) The request for an LOA must comply with the requirements set
forth in Sec. Sec. 18.170 through 18.172 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 digital geospatial file of the project footprint;
(3) Estimates of monthly human occupancy of project locations;
(4) An interaction plan for polar bears that describes the policies
and procedures that will provide for the safety and awareness of
personnel, avoid interactions with polar bears, and minimize impacts to
polar bears;
(5) A marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan that specifies
the procedures to monitor and mitigate the effects of the activities on
polar bears, including frequency and dates of aerial infrared (AIR)
surveys; and
(6) If necessary, a plan of cooperation (POC) to mitigate potential
conflicts between the activity and subsistence hunting.
(i) Applicants must provide documentation of communication with
potentially affected subsistence communities along the Beaufort Sea
coast (i.e., Kaktovik and Nuiqsut) and appropriate subsistence user
organizations to discuss the location, timing, and methods of
activities and identify and mitigate any potential conflicts with
subsistence polar bear hunting activities. Applicants must specifically
inquire of relevant communities and organizations if the activity will
interfere with the availability of 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. 18.168 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 Sec. 18.167.
(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 polar bears during activities specified in
Sec. 18.164 within the North Slope region of Alaska described in Sec.
18.165.
[[Page 28546]]
(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. 18.169 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 at 1-800-362-5148 (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. 18.170 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 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 polar bears at a
particular time or location or the occurrence of 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 polar bears. Where information is insufficient to
evaluate the potential effects of activities on 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 polar bears, initiate mitigation measures, and monitor,
record, and report the effects of the activities on polar bears.
(3) Have an approved 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 polar bear interaction risk evaluation and
mitigation measures;
(v) Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
(vi) 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. In coordination with the
FWS, the applicant adopted the high and moderate denning zones
developed by the FWS within the specified geographical area where this
subpart applies to delineate areas of polar bear denning density.
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
separate surveys for occupied polar bear dens in high density denning
zones, at least two surveys for occupied polar bear dens in moderate
density denning zones, and one survey for occupied polar bear dens in
other onshore project areas.
(i) The first survey must occur between the dates of November 25
and December 25 and the second survey must occur between December 15
and January 15. If activities will occur within the high density polar
bear denning zone, a third forward-looking infrared survey must occur
between December 5 and December 31. At least 24 hours must pass between
the completion of the surveys.
(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 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 exclusion zone around known polar
bear dens. Operators must observe a 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion
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, work must cease, and the FWS must be contacted for
guidance. The FWS will evaluate these instances on a case-by-case basis
to determine the appropriate action. Potential actions may range from
cessation or modification of work to conducting additional monitoring,
and the 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%5D">https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/search?otherKeyword=%5B%22Denning%20habitat%22%5D</a>. Doing so will inform
LOA holders of the potential locations of polar bear dens for
consideration when conducting activities in the coastal areas.
Geographical data defining suitable denning habitat will be entered
into the navigation system that allows vehicles to display the program
area, hazards, and avoidance areas.
(4) Use vehicle-mounted or handheld forward-looking infrared and
thermal scopes. When transiting or entering new terrain within the
project area, operators must use vehicle-mounted or handheld forward-
looking infrared units and thermal scopes to enhance detection of dens
and/or traveling family units (female with cubs) following den
[[Page 28547]]
emergence. Areas along any major drainages, snow drifts greater than
1.5 m (5 ft) in height, snow piles, and any other areas that may
provide suitable snow buildup for denning polar bears during seismic
surveys should be surveyed.
(5) Restrict activity in denning habitat. To reduce the risk of den
disturbance, operators must restrict activity and travel that would
occur over polar bear denning habitat and avoid steep terrain and areas
with pressure ridges that may support polar bear dens.
(6) Observe polar bear den restrictions. Restrict the timing of the
activity to limit disturbance around dens, including known or suspected
dens.
(7) 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 activities in a manner that
provides the female and cubs a clear and unimpeded path to the sea ice.
LOA holders must also notify the FWS and personnel conducting
operations between the female and cubs and the coastline.
(8) Restrict activities during open-water season. Operators must
conclude specified cleanup activities no later than the end of August
to reduce the likelihood of disturbance to polar bears and potential
for human-polar bear interactions.
(c) Mitigation measures for aircraft to avoid disturbance. Holders
of an LOA must undertake the following activities to minimize the
impact of aircraft activities on polar bears:
(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
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 a polar bear observed on ice or land measured in a straight line
between the polar bear and the ground directly underneath the aircraft.
Helicopters may not hover or circle above such areas or within 805 m
(0.5 mi) of such areas. Aircraft may be operated below 457 m (1,500 ft)
only when necessary to avoid adverse weather conditions. However, when
weather conditions necessitate operation of aircraft at altitudes below
457 m (1,500 ft), the operator must avoid areas of known polar bear
concentrations and should take precautions to avoid flying directly
over or within 805 m (0.5 mi) of these areas.
(iii) Operators must plan all aircraft routes to minimize any
potential conflict with active or anticipated 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 a polar bear. 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 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 polar bears from a group (i.e.,
two or more polar bears).
(d) Mitigation measures for the subsistence use of 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 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 polar bear hunting caused by the location, timing, and
methods of operations and support activities (see Sec. 18.167 for
details). If community concerns suggest that the activities may have an
adverse impact on the subsistence uses of this species, the applicant
must address conflict avoidance issues through a POC as described in
paragraph (d)(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 directed by
the FWS.
(i) The POC must include a description of the procedures by which
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 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 polar bears 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 polar bears for subsistence use.
Sec. 18.171 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 polar bears and the subsistence use of this 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. 18.172 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#026475355d6f6f6f5d7067726d707671426475712c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8decf8fe7d5d5d5e7caddc8d7cacccbf8decfcb96dfd7ce">[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) 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;
[[Page 28548]]
(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 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 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 polar bears during monitoring;
(5) Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
(6) Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of polar
bears observed; and
(7) Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
Sec. 18.173 Information collection requirements.
OMB has approved the collection of information contained in this
subpart and assigned OMB control number 1018-NEW. 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.
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.
[FR Doc. 2026-09885 Filed 5-15-26; 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 May 18, 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.