Notice2026-11645
Marine Mammals; Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for the Southern Beaufort Sea Stock of Polar Bears in the Prudhoe Bay Area of the North Slope Borough, Alaska; Draft Environmental Assessment
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
June 10, 2026
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, from BP America Production Company and BP Remediation Management (collectively BP), propose to authorize nonlethal, incidental take by harassment of small numbers Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears (Ursus maritimus) between June 1, 2026, and May 31, 2027. The applicant requested this authorization for take by harassment that may result from activities associated with drone site surveys, surface water monitoring, removal of solid waste (debris), backfill activities, and revegetation activities at Foggy Island Bay State No.1 gravel pad, in the Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope Borough, Alaska. This proposed authorization, if finalized, will be for up to three takes of polar bears by Level B harassment only. No take by injury or mortality is requested, expected, or proposed to be authorized. We invite comments on the proposed incidental harassment authorization 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 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35250-35261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11645]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2025-0506; FXES111607MRG01-267-FF07CAMM00]
Marine Mammals; Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for
the Southern Beaufort Sea Stock of Polar Bears in the Prudhoe Bay Area
of the North Slope Borough, Alaska; Draft Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of application; notice of availability of
proposed authorization and draft environmental assessment; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a
request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended,
from BP America Production Company and BP Remediation Management
(collectively BP), propose to authorize nonlethal, incidental take by
harassment of small numbers Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears
(Ursus maritimus) between June 1, 2026, and May 31, 2027. The applicant
requested this authorization for take by harassment that may result
from activities associated with drone site surveys, surface water
monitoring, removal of
[[Page 35251]]
solid waste (debris), backfill activities, and revegetation activities
at Foggy Island Bay State No.1 gravel pad, in the Prudhoe Bay area of
the North Slope Borough, Alaska. This proposed authorization, if
finalized, will be for up to three takes of polar bears by Level B
harassment only. No take by injury or mortality is requested, expected,
or proposed to be authorized. We invite comments on the proposed
incidental harassment authorization and the accompanying draft
environmental assessment from the public, Tribes, and local, State, and
Federal agencies.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 10, 2026.
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit
it using one of the methods identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this
document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be
considered.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may view supplemental information
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2025-0506.
Alternatively, you may request these documents from the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment submission: All submissions must include the docket number
[FWS-R7-ES-2025-0506] for this document. You must submit comments using
one of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic submission: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R7-
ES-2025-0506, which is the docket number for this action. Then, click
on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Notice
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.'' Comments must be submitted to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
before 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the date specified in DATES.
<bullet> U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2025-0506, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W),
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Burgess, by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0b2f7adadadb2a5a7b5aca1b4afb2b980a6b7b3eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95e7a2f8f8f8e7f0f2e0f9f4e1fae7ecd5f3e2e6bbf2fae3">[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:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but
not intentional, taking by harassment of small numbers of marine
mammals in response to requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 18, at 50 CFR
18.27(c)) engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) in a specified geographic region during a period of not more
than 1 year. The Secretary has delegated authority for implementation
of the MMPA to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or we).
According to the MMPA, the FWS shall allow this incidental taking by
harassment if we make findings that the total of such taking for the 1-
year period:
(1) is of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock;
(2) will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks; and
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use by Alaska
Natives.
If the requisite findings are made, we issue an authorization that
sets forth the following, where applicable:
(a) permissible methods of taking;
(b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or
stock for subsistence uses; and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking by
harassment, including, in certain circumstances, requirements for the
independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans or other research
proposals.
The term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, any marine mammal.
``Harassment'' for activities other than military readiness activities
or scientific research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal
Government means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in
the wild (the MMPA defines this as ``Level A harassment''), or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (the MMPA defines this as ``Level B harassment'').
The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact''
are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small takes of
marine mammals incidental to specified activities) as follows:
``Negligible impact'' is an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. ``Unmitigable adverse impact''
means an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) that is
likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly
displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27.
However, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates ``small
numbers'' with ``negligible impacts.'' We recognize ``small numbers''
and ``negligible impacts'' as two separate and distinct requirements
when reviewing requests for incidental harassment authorizations (IHA)
under the MMPA (see Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F.
Supp. 2d 1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). Instead, for our small numbers
determination, we estimate the likely number of marine mammals to be
taken and evaluate if that number is small relative to the size of the
species or stock.
The term ``least practicable adverse impact'' is not defined in the
MMPA or its enacting regulations. For this IHA, we ensure the least
practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are
effective in reducing the impact of specified activities, but not so
[[Page 35252]]
restrictive as to make specified activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete.
If the requisite findings are made, we shall issue an IHA, which
may set forth the following, where applicable: (i) permissible methods
of taking; (ii) other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence
uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives (if applicable); and (iii)
requirements for monitoring and reporting take by harassment.
Summary of Request
On May 13, 2025, the FWS received a request from ERM Alaska, Inc.
(ERM) on behalf of BP America Production Company and BP Remediation
Management (collectively BP) (ERM 2025) for authorization to take by
nonlethal incidental harassment Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears
(Ursus maritimus) during drone surveys of the site, surface water
monitoring, removal of solid waste (debris), backfill activities, and
revegetation activities at Foggy Island Bay State No.1 gravel pad, in
the Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope Borough, Alaska for a period
between June 1, 2026 and May 31, 2027. However, most field operations
will occur over a ten-day period beginning sometime between June 1,
2026, and completing no later than July 16, 2026. Their request also
included a proposed Polar Bear Safety, Awareness, and Interaction Plan.
The FWS requested further information on June 10, 2025, including
additional shapefiles, drone and airboat operations, and operational
time in the field by personnel. The requested information and
shapefiles were provided on June 23 and June 26, 2025. Additionally, BP
submitted a revised application reflecting discussions between FWS and
BP on July 31, 2025, which included updated figures depicting area
operations, updated take estimates, activity impacts, and information
about previous polar bear observations in the specific geographic
region. The FWS deemed this revised request (dated July 31, 2025;
hereafter referred to as the ``Request''), adequate and complete on
August 4, 2025.
Description of Specified Activities and Specified Geographic Region
In 2023, BP began reclamation activities including closure,
remediation, and rehabilitation at the Foggy Island Bay State No. 1
former drilling exploration site (hereafter Foggy Island pad) in the
Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope Borough of Alaska. Work executed
during winter 2022/2023 included removal of contaminated material and
foam insulation from the site for proper disposal. Restoration of the
site to conditions acceptable to the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and other
stakeholders began at that time. This requested IHA is for work
necessary to complete additional remediation, revegetation, and
monitoring activities in summer 2026, followed by a single site visit
by stakeholders in summer of 2027 (ERM 2025) at the Foggy Island pad
(see figure 1). In their request, BP America Production Company (BPAPC)
plans to conduct activities related to the closure, remediation, and
rehabilitation of the Foggy Island Bay State No. 1 former drilling
exploration site.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 35253]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10JN26.000
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Figure 1--Specific Geographic Region of the Proposed Remediation
Activities in the Prudhoe Bay Area of the North Slope Borough, Alaska
2026 Summer Operations
Drone Activities
A drone will be flown each day to survey the area of operation
(Foggy Island pad) for presence of polar bears prior to personnel
accessing the site. Drone surveys will also determine the extent of
geofoam board remaining at the site following 2023 remediation
activities, assess current site conditions at the time of the survey,
and determine the best access route for personnel and equipment. Drones
will take off and land from the Endicott Road roadside, which will
allow operators to maintain a visual line on the drone. Flight time of
the drone for each survey will be approximately 45-90 minutes. All
drone surveys will be conducted by Alaska Clean Seas (ACS) with
uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) in accordance with FAA regulations at
14 CFR part 107. All ACS UAS remote pilots are licensed under Part 107
and are current, experienced North Slope pilots. The location is over
9.7 kilometers (km) (6
[[Page 35254]]
miles (mi)) outside of controlled airspace, permitting a maximum
altitude of 122 meters (m) (400 feet (ft)) above ground level for all
phases of flight. Survey flights will be conducted between 61 m (200
ft) and 122 m (400 ft) above ground level depending on flight
visibility. If any polar bears are observed in the area, the altitude
will be increased up to the maximum of 122 m (400 ft) and the aircraft
will fly away from the animal. Every effort will be made to avoid all
animals in the area. Prior to aerial drone operations, the area will be
observed from nearby Endicott Road. Drone operations will not be
conducted if polar bears are observed from the road. The drone will not
be used to intentionally harass any wildlife.
Airboat Activities
Airboats will be used to transport both personnel and equipment to
and from the Foggy Island pad, and additionally carry debris, geofoam
boards, and any other waste back to Satellite Drilling Island (SDI) for
disposal. Airboats will depart from and return to SDI and will follow a
course parallel to Endicott Road before turning to head to the Foggy
Island pad. Airboat trips are expected to consist of an initial site
visit, primary operations, and a potential visit by the Alaska Oil and
Gas Commission or other governmental agencies to inspect the site
following operations. Boat crews will not leave the SDI facility or
land at the site if a polar bear is observed within visual range of the
landing sites. Crews will be trained to observe for polar bears, in
addition to having a bear guard. Prior to entering the airboat to
mobilize to the site, ERM personnel will drive the section of Endicott
Road that parallels the route to be taken in the airboat. The elevation
of the road helps to provide a panorama of the surrounding area. While
driving, ERM personnel will assess the area for the presence of polar
bears. The airboat operator, ACS, maintains close communications with
facility operators and personnel in the area and maintains up-to-date
information on bear observations. The airboat trip will not occur if
polar bears are observed from the road or if the airboat operator has
been notified of a nearby polar bear sighting. During the trip, one ERM
scientist in each airboat will be assigned to specifically scan the
surrounding area for marine mammals. If a marine mammal (including
polar bears) is observed, ERM will immediately notify the boat
operator.
Surface Water Monitoring
Surface water monitoring will be conducted. A small crew will
collect approximately 16 samples from the area surrounding the pad
(figure 1). An additional round of surface water monitoring will
potentially occur in 2027. Both the planned surface water monitoring
activities and the possible 2027 follow up monitoring event are
expected to take one day each. Sampling details are presented in the
Foggy Island Bay State No. 1 Corrective Action Plan (CAP; ERM 2023).
Geofoam Board/Debris Removal and Backfill
Geofoam boards and any other debris remaining at the site following
the 2023 remediation activities will be removed. The foam board will be
removed and stockpiled, one section of pad at a time, to minimize the
potential for windblown debris. The foam boards will then be
transported via airboat back to SDI to be taken to the Oxbow Landfill
for proper disposal. A depression around the wellhead will be
backfilled and graded with approximately 25 loose cubic yards (LCY) of
clean gravel from the pad footprint or clean imported gravel. If clean
gravel will be scavenged from the pad footprint, a skid steer (or
similar small piece of equipment) will be transported to the site via
airboat. If clean gravel is imported from offsite (not expected), it
will be transported via airboat or a vehicle approved for tundra
travel. This work is expected to require approximately 5 days to
complete.
Revegetation
Following remediation, the site will undergo additional
rehabilitation with the goal of achieving a self-sustaining vegetation
community through eventual natural colonization of indigenous
vegetation species. Seed and fertilizer will be spread to start the
revegetation process. This is expected to take approximately 1 day to
complete.
Other Site Visits
An initial site reconnaissance visit is scheduled to occur prior to
beginning field operations. One additional site visit with members of
the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and/or other government agency
personnel is scheduled to occur sometime in the period after project
completion, possibly in 2027. Site visits are expected to take 1 day
each.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region
The SBS polar bears are the only marine mammal species under the
FWS's jurisdiction likely to be found within the specified geographic
region. Information on range, stocks, biology, and climate impacts on
SBS polar bears can be found in the supplemental information (available
as described above in ADDRESSES section).
Potential Impacts of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals
Surface-Level Impacts on Polar Bears
Disturbance impacts on polar bears are influenced by the
disturbance type, duration, intensity, timing, and source location.
Disturbance from the specified activities would originate primarily
from drone site surveys, surface water monitoring, removal of solid
waste (debris), backfill activities, and revegetation activities. The
noises, sights, and smells produced by these activities could elicit
variable responses from polar bears, ranging from avoidance to
attraction. When disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally
by walking, running, or swimming away from a noise source, or
physiologically via increased heart rates or hormonal stress responses
(Harms et al. 1997; Tempel and Guti[eacute]rrez 2003). Individual
response to noise disturbance can vary based on previous interactions,
sex, age, and maternal status (Andersen and Aars 2008; Dyck and Baydack
2004). Noise and odors could also attract polar bears to work areas.
Attracting polar bears to these locations could result in human-polar
bear interactions, unintentional harassment, intentional hazing, or
possible lethal take in defense of human life. This proposed IHA would
authorize only the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of polar
bears that may result from the specified activities and would require
mitigation measures to manage attractants in work areas and reduce the
risk of human-polar bear interactions.
Human-Polar Bear Interactions
A larger percentage of polar bears are spending more time on land
during the open water season, which may increase the risk for human-
polar bear interactions (Atwood et al. 2016; Rode et al. 2022). Polar
bear interaction plans, personnel training, attractants management, and
polar bear monitoring are mitigation measures used to reduce human-
polar bear interactions and minimize the risks to polar bears and
humans when interactions occur. Efficient management of attractants
(e.g., human food, garbage) can prevent polar bears from associating
humans with food, which lowers the risk of human-polar bear
interactions (Atwood and Wilder 2021). Polar bear interaction
[[Page 35255]]
plans detail the policies and procedures that will be implemented by BP
to avoid attracting and interacting with polar bears as well as to
minimize impacts to the polar bears. Interaction plans also detail how
to respond to the presence of polar bears, the chain of command and
communication, and required training for personnel. Information gained
from monitoring polar bears near industrial infrastructure and
activities can be useful for better understanding polar bear
distribution, behavior, and interactions with humans. BP may use bear
observers and thermal cameras to monitor for polar bears. It is
possible that human-polar bear interactions may occur during the
specified activities, and mitigation measures will be implemented by BP
to minimize the risk of human-polar bear interactions during the
specified activities.
From July through 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 industrial activities
travel in open water and avoid large ice floes.
Polar bear monitoring reports indicate that on land, most polar
bear observations occur within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the coastline.
Facilities in 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 monitoring reports show they appear to traverse the
human-developed areas of the North Slope as easily as the undeveloped
areas.
Impacts of the Specified Activities on Polar Bear Prey Species
Information on the potential impacts of the specified activities on
polar bear prey species can be found in Supplemental Information to
this document (available as described above in ADDRESSES).
Estimated Take
Definitions of Incidental Take
Below we provide the circumstances under which the three types of
take of polar bears may occur. The FWS does not estimate and is not
authorizing either Level A harassment or lethal take as a part of this
proposed IHA; however, an explanation of these take types is provided
for context and background.
Lethal Take
Human activity may result in biologically significant impacts to
polar bears. In the most serious interactions (e.g., vehicle collision,
running over an unknown den causing its collapse), human actions can
result in the mortality of polar bears. We also note that, while not
considered incidental, in situations where there is an imminent threat
to human life, polar bears may be killed. Additionally, though not
considered incidental, polar bears have been accidentally killed during
efforts to deter polar bears from a work area for safety and from
direct chemical exposure (81 FR 52276, August 5, 2016). Unintentional
disturbance of a female polar bear by human activity during the denning
season may cause the female to abandon her cubs in the den before the
cubs can survive on their own. This scenario may result in the
incidental lethal take of the cubs. However, the specified activities
will not occur during denning season and therefore do not pose a risk
to denning females or their cubs.
Level A Harassment
Human activity may result in the injury of polar bears. Level A
harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is defined under the
MMPA 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. However, as previously noted, the
specified activities will not occur during denning season and
therefore, do not pose a risk to denning sows or their cubs.
Level B Harassment
Level B harassment for nonmilitary readiness activities is defined
by the MMPA as 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, barrier islands,
or other resting sites;
<bullet> Abandoning prey or feeding areas;
<bullet> Using a longer or more difficult route of travel instead
of the intended path;
<bullet> Interrupting breeding, sheltering, or feeding;
<bullet> Moving away at a fast pace (adult) and polar bear cubs
struggling to keep up;
<bullet> Temporary, short-term cessation of nursing or resting;
<bullet> Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a prolonged period
(adults); or
<bullet> Loss of hunting opportunity due to disturbance of prey.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other
behavioral responses may be indicative of take by Level B harassment.
In some circumstances, eliciting behavioral responses that equate to
take by Level B harassment repeatedly may result in Level A 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.
Polar Bear: Surface-Based Interactions
Impact Area
To assess the area of potential impact from the project activities,
we calculated the area affected by project activities to such a degree
that harassment is possible. We refer to this area as the zone of
potential impact. Behavioral response rates of polar bears to potential
[[Page 35256]]
sources of disturbance are highly variable, and data to support the
relationship between distance to bears and disturbance outcomes are
limited. Dyck and Baydack (2004) found sex-based differences in the
frequencies of vigilant bouts of 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. Similarly, Andersen and Aars (2008)
found that female polar bears with cubs (the most conservative group
observed) began to walk or run away from approaching snowmobiles at a
mean distance of 1,534 m (0.95 mi). Thus, while future research into
the reaction of polar bears to anthropogenic disturbance may indicate a
different zone of potential impact is appropriate, the current
literature supports the use of a 1.6 km (1.0 mi) distance impact area
that encompasses the vast majority of polar bear harassment events.
Reactions by wildlife to drone overflights is variable; some
species display no signs of disturbance while others are negatively
impacted (Mo and Bonatakis 2022). There is limited information on the
impacts and/or likelihood of disturbance by drones on polar bears.
Available research indicates that polars bears may display mixed
responses to low-altitude drones ranging from no obvious outward
acknowledgement of the drone to minor changes in behavior (Barnas et
al. 2018; Palomino[hyphen]Gonz[aacute]lez et al. 2021; Jagielski et al.
2022). However, a study on American black bears (Ursus americanus)
found that black bears can display a direct physiological response, as
measured by significant increases in heart rate, to overflights by
drones even if no observable behavioral responses occur (Ditmer et al.
2015). While we cannot infer that this same response may occur in polar
bears, we also cannot ignore the possibility of unseen disturbance and,
therefore, take occurring. For this reason, we include drone overflight
within our surface-based interactions analysis.
Similarly, the direct impacts of limited nearshore airboat use are
also unknown with regard to polar bear response. Airboats produce noise
during their operation, but we do not believe that the noise is loud
enough to warrant using an impact area that extends beyond 1.6 km (1.0
mi) away from airboats (see Estimated Harassment, below). Nor do we
believe that use of airboats in a nearshore and limited capacity, as
proposed, are comparable to the same offshore vessel operation analyses
that have been conducted in previous IHAs (90 FR 33982, July 18, 2025).
Therefore, we also include airboat operation within the surface-based
interactions analysis.
Estimated Harassment
We estimated Level B harassment using the spatio-temporally
specific encounter rates and temporally specific harassment rates
derived in the 2026-2031 Proposed Beaufort Sea Incidental Take
Regulations (ITR) (91 FR 11240, March 09, 2026) in conjunction with
BP's project operations footprint. Table 1 provides the definition for
each variable used in the take formulas. Using the approaches described
above, we estimated the total number of polar bears expected to be
harassed by surface-based interactions during the proposed IHA period
as a total of three bears (table 3).
Table 1--Definitions of Variables Used in Take Estimates of Non-Denning
Polar Bears in the North Slope Borough, Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bes............................... Bears encountered in zone of
potential impact for the entire
season.
ac................................ Coastal exposure area.
ai................................ Inland exposure area.
ro................................ Occupancy rate.
eco............................... Coastal open water season bear-
encounter rate in bears/season.
eio............................... Inland open water season bear-
encounter rate in bears/season.
eci............................... Coastal ice season bear-encounter
rate in bears/season.
eii............................... Inland ice season bear-encounter
rate in bears/season.
ti................................ Ice season harassment rate.
Bt................................ Number of estimated Level B
harassment events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The variables defined above were used in a series of formulas to
ultimately estimate the total harassment from surface-level
interactions. Encounter rates were originally calculated as polar bears
encountered per square kilometer per season. As a part of their
request, BP provided the FWS with geospatial files indicating the
location of the proposed operational area, footprint of drone survey
areas, airboat routes, and surface water sampling areas. The request
also included the percent of time each component of the specified
activities would be occupied by humans. These files were buffered by
1.6 km (1 mi) to calculate the area of disturbance.
Impact areas were multiplied by the appropriate encounter rate to
obtain the number of polar bears expected to be encountered in an area
of interest per season (Bes). The equation below (equation 1) provides
an example of the calculation of polar bears encountered in the ice
season for an area of interest in the coastal zone.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10JN26.001
To generate the number of estimated Level B harassments for each
area of interest, we multiplied the number of polar bears in the area
of interest per season by the proportion of the season the area is
occupied, the rate of occupancy, and the harassment rate (equation 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10JN26.002
Table 2--Seasonal Polar Bear Encounter Rates by Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice Season (December 1-June 30)................. 0.1253 bears/km\2\.
Open-water Season (July 1-November 30).......... 1.8130 bears/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inland Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice Season (December 1-June 30)................. 0.00972 bears/km\2\.
[[Page 35257]]
Open-water Season (July 1-November 30).......... 0.01728 bears/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table is adapted from the 2026-2031 Proposed Beaufort Sea ITR
(91 FR 11240, March 09, 2026).
Sum of Take From All Sources
The applicant proposes to conduct drone site surveys, surface water
monitoring, removal of solid waste (debris), backfill activities, and
revegetation activities at Foggy Island Bay State No.1 gravel pad, in
the Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope Borough, Alaska, from June 1,
2026 through May 31, 2027.
Table 3--Total Estimated Takes by Level B Harassment of Polar Bears by
Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
estimated
Source Level B
harassments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bears on the surface.................................... 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Assumptions
In order to conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount
of Level B harassment, we made several critical assumptions.
Level B harassment is equated herein with behavioral responses that
indicate harassment or disturbance. There is likely a portion of
animals that respond in ways that indicate some level of disturbance
but do not experience significant biological consequences. Our
estimates do not account for variable responses related to polar bear
age and sex. 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. There is not enough information on
composition of the SBS polar bear stock in the specified project area
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
mixed composition, meaning our estimated response rates are applicable.
The estimates of behavioral response presented here do not account
for potential individual movements of animals away from the project
area that would alter the density of nearby polar bears, nor does it
account for differential responses of animals to noise or human
presence due to past experiences. Our analysis assumes a static density
of polar bears in the project area (i.e. density or number of polar
bears do not change over time). There is not enough information
available about the movement of polar bears in response to specific
disturbances to further refine this assumption of unchanging density.
Our estimate of up-to three polar bears taken by Level B harassment
include one bear estimated through quantitative analysis (see Polar
Bear: Surface-Based Interactions), plus an additional two polar bears
to account for family group composition. If the single predicted polar
bear is a family group (i.e. sow with accompanying juveniles), the most
common composition is a sow plus two juveniles.
Determinations and Findings
In making these findings, we considered the best available
scientific information, including: the biological and behavioral
characteristics of the species; the most recent information on species
distribution and abundance within the area of the specified activities,
the current and expected future status of the stock (including existing
and foreseeable human and natural stressors), the potential sources of
disturbance caused by the project; and the potential responses of
marine mammals to this disturbance. In addition, we reviewed applicant-
provided materials; information in our files and datasets, published
reference materials, and information provided by species experts.
Small Numbers
For our small numbers determination, we consider whether the
estimated number of polar bears to be subjected to incidental take are
respectively small relative to the population size of the species or
stock.
1. We estimate that BP's proposed specified activities in the
specified geographic region will cause no more than harassment (Level
B) to three polar bears during the 1-year period of this proposed IHA
(see Sum of Take from All Sources). Take of 3 animals is 0.33 percent
of the best available estimate of the current SBS stock size of 907
animals (Bromaghin et al. 2015; Atwood et al. 2020; ((3 / 907) x 100
[ap] 0.33 percent). The FWS has released a draft stock assessment
report (SAR) for the SBS polar bear population (Draft revised Polar
Bear (Ursus maritimus) Stock Assessment Report announced in the Federal
Register on January 2, 2025 at 90 FR 114), in which the SBS polar bear
stock is estimated as 819 bears, with the change in stock size largely
due to a shift in the border between the SBS and North Beaufort Sea
stock. Should this draft SAR be finalized, 3 bears would be 0.36
percent of the updated estimate of the SBS stock. For both stock size
estimates, 3 bears or less than 0.37 percent of the stock represents a
``small number'' of polar bears.
2. The footprint of the specified activities within the specified
geographic region is small relative to the range of the SBS stock of
polar bear. SBS polar bears range well beyond the boundaries of the
proposed IHA region. As such, the IHA region itself represents only a
subset of the potential area in which SBS polar bears may occur. Thus,
the FWS concludes that a small portion of the SBS polar bear population
may be present in the specified geographic region during the time of
the specified activities.
Small Number Conclusion
We propose a finding that take of up to three SBS polar bears
represents a small number of bears in the SBS stock.
Negligible Impact
For our negligible impact determination, we consider the following:
1. Previous activities similar to the specified activities have had
minimal documented effects on polar bears, taking into consideration
the baseline of existing impacts from other projects and factors.
Anticipated effects will be limited to short-term, temporary behavioral
changes. Furthermore, our analyses do not indicate, nor do we
anticipate, any take by Level A harassment or lethal take of polar
bears during the 1-year period of this proposed IHA. Therefore, we
anticipate that the specified activities will not have lasting impacts
that could significantly affect an individual polar bear's health,
reproduction, or survival. The limited extent of anticipated impacts on
polar bears--(i.e., temporary and minor behavioral disturbances
associated with Level B harassment)--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
[[Page 35258]]
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. BP has committed to the implementation of monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential
impacts of their operations on polar bears. Daily road and drone
surveys for polar bears prior to beginning operations, 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.
We also consider the conjectural or speculative impacts associated
with these specified activities. The specific congressional direction
described below justifies balancing the probability of such impacts
with their severity: If potential effects of a specified activity are
conjectural or speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be
appropriate. A finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if
the probability of occurrence is low, but the potential effects may be
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts
must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species or
stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this balancing
test, the FWS will thoroughly evaluate the risks involved and the
potential impacts on marine mammal populations. Such determination will
be made based on the best available scientific information (54 FR
40338, September 29, 1989, quoting 53 FR 8473, March 15, 1988, and 132
Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 1986)).
The effects of most concern, specific to polar bears, to these
types of operations is the mortality of polar bear cubs that could
result from disturbance during certain periods of denning. However, the
activities proposed in this IHA are well before the denning period
begins during the early winter months. Therefore, there is no risk to
denning polar bears. Furthermore, the short time period of operations,
in combination with the small geographic area, limited scope of
activities, and committed migration measures, minimize the potential
impacts to polar bears.
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
IHA.
We reviewed the effects of the specified activities on polar bears.
Based on our review of these potential impacts, past monitoring
reports, and the biology and natural history of polar bears, we
anticipate that such effects will be limited to short-term behavioral
disturbances.
We have evaluated climate change regarding polar bears as part of
the environmental baseline. Climate change is a global phenomenon and
was considered as the overall driver of effects that could alter polar
bear habitat and behavior. The FWS is currently involved in research to
understand how climate change may affect polar bears. As we gain a
better understanding of climate change effects, we will incorporate
this information in future authorizations.
We preliminarily find that the impacts of these specified
activities cannot be reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect either SBS polar bears through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. We, therefore, preliminarily
find 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 proposed projects, and the
best scientific information available, including monitoring data from
similar activities, we propose a finding that take caused by the
specified activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of SBS polar bears for taking for subsistence uses during
the proposed timeframe.
While polar bears represent a small portion, in terms of the number
of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the Utqiagvik,
Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik communities, polar bear harvest is important to
Alaska Natives. The project activities are in close proximity to an
established industrial area, with the closest known common locations of
polar bear harvest greater than 70 km (43.5 mi) away. BP has committed
to notify the Village of Kaktovik and Village of Nuiqsut of the planned
activities and to document any discussions of potential conflict. BP
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. Should concerns related to subsistence
uses of polar bears be voiced, BP will develop a plan of cooperation
(POC) that identifies measures to minimize any adverse effects. This
POC must provide the procedures addressing how BP 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 is not aware of information that indicates that polar bears
will be deterred from hunting areas or impacted by the specified
project activities in any way that diminishes their availability for
subsistence use.
Least Practicable Adverse Impact
We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of mitigation
measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the specified
activities; the best available scientific information; and monitoring
data during industry activities in the specified geographic region. We
propose a finding that the mitigation measures included within BP's
request will ensure the least practicable adverse impacts on SBS polar
bears and their availability for taking for subsistence use.
Drone flight restrictions around observed polar bears will reduce
the potential for uncrewed aircraft disturbing polar bears. BP does not
plan to use crewed aircraft during these proposed activities, which
provides further mitigative benefit, as crewed aircraft would increase
the probability of take. Finally, BP 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 storage of 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 BP's application for this IHA. Based on the information we
currently have regarding polar bear disturbances and attractants, we
concluded that the mitigation measures outlined in BP's request (ERM
2025) and incorporated into this authorization will minimize impacts
from the specified drone site surveys, surface water monitoring,
removal of solid waste (debris), backfill activities, and revegetation
activities to the extent practicable.
Several additional potential mitigation measures were considered
but determined to be not practicable. These measures are listed below:
<bullet> Spatial and temporal restrictions on surface activity--
Some spatial and temporal restrictions of operations were included in
BP's request; however, imposing further restrictions would risk
preventing the accomplishment of project objectives.
[[Page 35259]]
<bullet> Requirement of third-party neutral marine mammal
observers--The applicant has committed to having a trained scientist on
board each airboat specifically to scan for polar bears. All crew
members will be trained to observe for polar bears and there will be a
bear guard, trained to FWS standards, present during all activities.
However, operational constraints prevent the applicant from hiring
third-party marine mammal observers for all operations due to space
considerations. Additional crew may also require additional transit
vehicles or larger vessels, which could increase disturbance.
<bullet> Require all activities to cease if a polar bear is injured
or killed until an investigation is completed--The FWS has incorporated
reporting requirements for all polar bear interactions into this
proposed authorization, as well as a requirement to cease activities
following incidents of unauthorized take so long as it is safe to do
so. While ceasing all activities following a polar bear injury or death
could aid investigations in some cases, this action may not be possible
or safe in certain circumstances and, thus, will not be mandated.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this notice may be found at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2025-0506.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance
with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily concluded
that authorizing the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by Level
B harassment of up to three individuals from the SBS stock of polar
bears during the IHA period in the specified geographic region while
conducting the specified activities would not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment and, thus, preparation of an
environmental impact statement for this incidental harassment
authorization is not required by section 102(2) of NEPA or its
implementing regulations. We are accepting comments on the draft
environmental assessment as specified above in DATES and ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all
Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or
endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Prior to issuance of a final IHA, the FWS will
complete intra-Service consultation under section 7 of the ESA on our
proposed issuance of an IHA. These evaluations and findings will be
made available on the FWS's website at: <a href="https://reports.ecosphere.fws.gov/FWSPublicReports/Reports/Index?reportname=BiologicalOpinionReport">https://reports.ecosphere.fws.gov/FWSPublicReports/Reports/Index?reportname=BiologicalOpinionReport</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.''
The FWS has evaluated possible effects of the specified activities
on federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and organizations. The
applicant has presented a communication process, culminating in POCs if
needed, with the Alaska Native organizations and communities most
likely to be affected by their work. The FWS does not anticipate
impacts to Alaska Native Tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
corporations and does not anticipate requesting consultation; however,
we invite continued discussion, either about the project and its
impacts or about our coordination and information exchange throughout
the IHA/POC process.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new collection of information that
requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has
previously approved the information collection requirements associated
with IHAs and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0194 (expires August 31,
2026). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
Proposed Authorization
We propose to authorize the nonlethal, incidental take by Level B
harassment of up to three individual polar bears from the SBS stock of
polar bears. Authorized take will be limited to disruption of
behavioral patterns that may be caused by drone site surveys, surface
water monitoring, removal of solid waste (debris), backfill activities,
and revegetation activities by BP at Foggy Island Bay State No. 1
gravel pad, in the Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope Borough, Alaska,
from June 1, 2026, to May 31, 2027. We do not anticipate or authorize
any take by Level A harassment, injury, or death to polar bears
resulting from these activities.
A. General Conditions for the IHA for BP
1. Activities must be conducted in the manner described in the
Revised Request dated July 31, 2025, for an IHA and in accordance with
all applicable conditions and mitigation measures. The taking of polar
bears whenever the required conditions, mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are not fully implemented as required by the IHA is
prohibited. Failure to follow the measures specified both in the
revised request and within the IHA may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of the IHA.
2. If project activities cause unauthorized take (i.e., take of
more than three polar bears from the SBS stock, a form of take other
than Level B harassment, or take of one or more polar bears through
methods not described in the IHA), BP must take the following actions:
i. Cease its activities immediately (or reduce activities to the
minimum level necessary to maintain safety);
ii. Report the details of the incident to the FWS within 48 hours;
and
iii. Suspend further activities until the FWS has reviewed the
circumstances and determined whether additional mitigation measures are
necessary to avoid further unauthorized taking.
3. All operations managers, vehicle operators, and vessel operators
must receive a copy of this IHA and maintain access to it for reference
at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be
fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the
IHA at all times during project work.
4. This IHA applies to activities associated with the proposed
project as
[[Page 35260]]
described in this document and in BP's revised request. Changes to the
proposed project without prior authorization may invalidate the IHA.
5. BP's Revised Request is approved and fully incorporated into
this IHA unless exceptions are specifically noted herein. The revised
request includes: BP's ``Incidental Harassment Authorization and Letter
of Authorization Application Foggy Island Bay State No. 1'' dated May
13, 2025, and revised July 31, 2025, which includes BP's ``Polar Bear
Interaction Plan, Mitigation Measures to Effect Least Practicable
Adverse Impact to Polar Bears'' (LPAI checklist), and geospatial files.
6. Operators will allow FWS personnel or the FWS's designated
representative to visit project work sites to monitor for impacts to
polar bears and subsistence uses of polar bears at any time throughout
project activities so long as it is safe to do so. ``Operators'' are
all personnel operating under BP's authority, including all contractors
and subcontractors.
BP must implement the following policies and procedures to avoid
interactions and minimize to the greatest extent practicable any
adverse impacts on polar bears, their habitat, and the availability of
these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
B. General Avoidance Measures
7. BP must cooperate with the FWS and other designated Federal,
State, and local agencies to monitor and mitigate the impacts of
activities on polar bears.
8. Trained and qualified personnel must be designated to monitor at
all times for the presence of polar bears; initiate mitigation
measures; and monitor, record, and report the effects of the activities
on polar bears. BP must provide all operators with polar bear awareness
training prior to their participation in project activities.
9. An FWS-approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction
plan must be on file with the FWS's Marine Mammal Management office and
available on site. The interaction plan must include:
i. A description of the proposed activity (i.e., a summary of the
plan of operations during the proposed activity);
ii. A food, waste, and other attractants management plan;
iii. Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
iv. Site-specific polar bear interaction risk evaluation and
mitigation measures;
v. Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
vi. Polar bear observation and reporting procedures.
BP must contact potentially affected subsistence communities and
hunter organizations to discuss potential conflicts caused by the
activities and provide the FWS documentation of communications as
described in D. Measures to Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users.
10. Mitigation measures for drones. BP must undertake the following
activities to limit disturbance from drone activities:
i. Drones shall operate between 61 m (200 ft) and 122 m (400 ft)
above ground level, excluding takeoff and landing.
ii. If any polar bears are observed in the area by a drone, the
drone must increase its altitude to the maximum of 122 m (400 ft) above
ground level and immediately fly away from the observed polar bear(s).
Drones must not intentionally be maneuvered any closer to an observed
polar bear after initial observation has been made. Unnecessary turning
of drones, hovering, and/or circling when within 805 m (0.5 mi) of a
known polar bear(s) must be avoided.
iii. Every effort must be made to avoid all polar bears in the
area.
iv. Drones must not be operated in such a way as to separate
individual polar bears from a group (i.e., two or more individuals).
v. Drones must not be used under any circumstance to intentionally
harass (e.g., haze) any polar bears.
vi. Prior to conducting drone operations, BP will conduct a pre-
drone survey of the operational area from Endicott Road. If a polar
bear is observed during a pre-drone survey, drones must not be used
until the polar bear(s) are confirmed to have left the area.
vii. Drones must not land within 805 m (0.5 mi) of any polar
bear(s).
11. Mitigation measures for airboat activities.
i. Prior to and during airboat use, BP must assess the access route
for polar bears. While workers are transiting in the airboat, a
designated occupant must be assigned to scan the surrounding area for
marine mammals.
ii. Airboats must always maintain the maximum distance possible
from polar bears. Airboats should never approach within an 805-m (0.5-
mi) radius of polar bears unless it is an emergency.
iii. Airboats must take all practical measures (i.e., reduce speed,
change course heading) to avoid approaching polar bears in the water,
avoid separating individual polar bears from a group, encircling polar
bears, and impeding movement of polar bears.
iv. When operationally feasible, airboats should engage in methods
to limit airboat noise, such as reducing speed, performing regular
airboat maintenance, using fewer airboats, and/or implementing quieting
technologies (e.g., propeller design, wake improvement devices,
propulsion enhancement measures, hull treatment solutions).
v. Provide written guidance to airboat operators for minimizing
disturbance to polar bears.
vi. Airboats must not be operated if polar bears have been observed
or are known to be in the area.
C. Monitoring
12. Operators must provide on-site observers and implement the FWS-
approved polar bear and safety, awareness, and interaction plan to
apply mitigation measures, monitor the project's effects on polar bears
and subsistence uses, and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
13. All on-site observers shall complete an FWS-provided training
course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and
mitigation activities identified in the polar bear safety, awareness,
and interaction plan.
14. On-site observers must be present during all operations and
must record all polar bear observations, identify and document
potential harassment, and work with personnel to implement appropriate
mitigation measures.
15. Operators shall cooperate with the FWS and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of project
activities on polar bears. Where information is insufficient to
evaluate the potential effects of activities on polar bears and the
subsistence use of this species, BP may be required to participate in
joint monitoring efforts to address these information needs and ensure
the least practicable impact to this resource.
D. Measures To Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users
BP must conduct its activities in a manner that, to the greatest
extent practicable, minimizes adverse impacts on the availability of
polar bears for subsistence uses.
16. BP will be required to develop an FWS-approved POC if, through
community consultation, concerns are raised regarding impacts to
subsistence harvest or Alaska Native Tribes and Organizations.
17. If required, BP will implement the FWS-approved POC.
18. Prior to conducting the work, BP will take the following steps
to reduce
[[Page 35261]]
potential effects on subsistence harvest of polar bears:
i. Avoid work in areas of known polar bear subsistence harvest;
ii. Notify the Native Village of Kaktovik and the Native Village of
Nuiqsit of the proposed project activities;
iii. Work to resolve any concerns of potentially affected Alaska
Native Tribal Organizations and Corporations regarding the project's
effects on subsistence hunting of polar bears;
iv. If any unresolved or ongoing concerns of potentially affected
Alaska Native Tribal Organizations and Corporations remain, modify the
POC in consultation with the FWS and subsistence stakeholders to
address these concerns; and
v. Implement FWS-required mitigation measures that will reduce
impacts to subsistence users and their resources.
E. Reporting Requirements
BP must report the results of monitoring to the FWS Marine Mammals
Management office via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bedfcbcd4e6e6e6d4f9eefbe4f9fff8cbedfcf8a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f59480860525252604d5a4f504d4b4c7f59484c11585049">[email protected]</span></a>.
19. Activity progress reports. BP must notify the FWS at least 48
hours prior to the onset of activities.
20. Polar bear observation reports. BP must report, within 48
hours, all observations of polar bears and potential polar bear dens
during any project activities. Upon request, monitoring report data
must be provided in a common electronic format (to be specified by the
FWS). Information in the observation report must include, but need not
be limited to:
i. Date and time of each observation;
ii. Locations of the observer and polar bears (GPS coordinates if
possible);
iii. Number of polar bears;
iv. Sex and age class--adult, subadult, cub (if known);
v. Observer name and contact information;
vi. Weather, visibility, and, if at sea, sea state and sea ice
conditions at the time of observation;
vii. Estimated closest distance of polar bears from personnel and
facilities;
viii. Type of work being conducted at time of sighting;
ix. Possible attractants present;
x. Polar bear behavior--initial behavior when first observed (e.g.,
walking, swimming, resting, etc.);
xi. Potential reaction--behavior of polar bear potentially in
response to presence or activity of personnel and equipment;
xii. Description of the encounter;
xiii. Duration of the encounter; and
xiv. Mitigation actions taken.
21. Human-polar bear interaction reports. BP must report all human-
polar bear interaction incidents immediately, and not later than 48
hours after the incident. Human-polar bear interactions include:
i. Any situation in which there is a possibility for unauthorized
take. For instance, when project activities exceed those included in an
IHA, when a mitigation measure was required but not enacted, or when
injury or death of a polar bear occurs. Reports must include all
information specified for an observation report in condition 20 above,
a complete detailed description of the incident, and any other actions
taken.
ii. Injured, dead, or distressed polar bears that are clearly not
associated with project activities (e.g., animals found outside the
project area, previously wounded animals, or carcasses with moderate to
advanced decomposition or scavenger damage) must also be reported to
the FWS immediately, and not later than 48 hours after discovery.
Photographs, video, location information, or any other available
documentation must be included.
22. Final report. The results of monitoring and mitigation efforts
identified in the marine mammal avoidance and interaction plan must be
submitted to the FWS for review within 90 days of the expiration of
this IHA. Upon request, final report data must be provided in a common
electronic format (to be specified by the FWS). Information in the
final report must include, but need not be limited to:
i. Copies of all observation reports submitted under the IHA;
ii. A summary of the observation reports;
iii. A summary of monitoring and mitigation efforts including
areas, total hours, total distances, and distribution;
iv. Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability
of polar bears during monitoring;
v. Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
vi. A summary and analysis of the distribution, abundance, and
behavior of all polar bears observed; and
vii. Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
Request for Public Comments
If you wish to comment on this proposed authorization, the
associated draft environmental assessment, or both documents, you may
submit your comments by either of the methods described in ADDRESSES.
Please identify if you are commenting on the proposed authorization,
draft environmental assessment, or both; make your comments as specific
as possible; confine them to issues pertinent to the documents; and
explain the reason for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your
comments should reference the specific section or paragraph that you
are addressing. The FWS will consider all comments that are received
before the close of the comment period (see DATES). The FWS does not
anticipate extending the public comment period beyond the 30 days
required under section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA.
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
become part of the administrative record for this proposal. Before
including your address, telephone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your
entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Drew Crane,
Acting Assistant Regional Director for Fisheries and Ecological
Services, Alaska Region.
[FR Doc. 2026-11645 Filed 6-9-26; 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 June 10, 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.