Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears and Pacific Walruses in the Beaufort Sea and North Slope of Alaska

Issuing agencies

Abstract

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in response to a request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), finalize regulations facilitating the authorization of incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) during year-round oil and gas industry activities in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)) and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. Take may result from oil and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation activities occurring for a period of 5 years. Oil and gas industry operations include similar types of activities covered by the previous 5-year Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations effective from August 6, 2021, through August 5, 2026. We will issue letters of authorization, upon request, for specific activities in accordance with these regulations.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 200 (Monday, October 19, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66204-66274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21371]



[[Page 66203]]

Vol. 91

Monday,

No. 200

October 19, 2026

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 18





Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears and Pacific Walruses in 
the Beaufort Sea and North Slope of Alaska; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2026 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 66204]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 18

[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694; FXES111607MRG01-267-FF07CAMM00]
RIN 1018-BI93


Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears and Pacific 
Walruses in the Beaufort Sea and North Slope of Alaska

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in response to a 
request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 from the 
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), finalize regulations 
facilitating the authorization of incidental, unintentional take of 
small numbers of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and Pacific walruses 
(Odobenus rosmarus divergens) during year-round oil and gas industry 
activities in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS)) and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. Take may result from oil 
and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation 
activities occurring for a period of 5 years. Oil and gas industry 
operations include similar types of activities covered by the previous 
5-year Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations effective from August 
6, 2021, through August 5, 2026. We will issue letters of 
authorization, upon request, for specific activities in accordance with 
these regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective October 19, 2026 and remains effective 
through October 19, 2031.

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may view this rule, the 
associated final environmental assessment (EA), and other supporting 
material at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-
2026-0694, or these documents may be requested as described in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madonna Baucum, Chief of Regulations, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0b99e969fafb39f9c9cb0968783de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="61280f070e3e220e0d0d210716124f060e17">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>, or by 
telephone at (703) 468-8211. 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:

Immediate Promulgation

    In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(3)), we find that we have good cause to make this rule effective 
less than 30 days after publication. Immediate promulgation of the rule 
will ensure that the requester will implement mitigation measures, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements that reduce potential impacts on 
polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus 
divergens), will allow the applicant to receive coverage under the MMPA 
(16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) for potential take of polar bears and Pacific 
walruses, increase our understanding of impacts that result from the 
requester's activities, and thus further our conservation objectives. 
Finally, this rule recognizes an exemption that is afforded the 
requester under the MMPA.

Executive Summary

    In accordance with the MMPA and its implementing regulations, we, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter ``FWS'' or we), finalize 
incidental take regulations (ITRs) that facilitate the authorization of 
the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears and 
Pacific walruses during oil and gas exploration, development, 
production, and transportation activities in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska 
and the OCS) and adjacent northern coast of Alaska, not including lands 
within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), for a 5-year period. 
Oil and gas activities include similar types of activities covered by 
the previous 5-year Beaufort Sea ITRs effective from August 5, 2021, 
through August 5, 2026 (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021; revised 90 FR 
27398, June 26, 2025).
    This final rule is based on our findings that the total takings of 
polar bears and Pacific walruses during specified activities will 
impact small numbers of animals, will have a negligible impact on the 
species or stocks, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of these species or stocks for subsistence use by 
Alaska Natives. We base our findings on data from monitoring the 
encounters and interactions between these species and the oil and gas 
industry; research on these species; oil spill risk assessments; 
potential and documented effects on these species from similar 
activities; information regarding the natural history and conservation 
status of polar bears and Pacific walruses; data reported from Alaska 
Native subsistence hunters; and predictive modeling. In conjunction 
with this rulemaking, the FWS has prepared an EA and associated FONSI.
    These regulations include permissible methods of taking; mitigation 
measures to ensure that AOGA activities will have the least practicable 
adverse impact on these species or stocks, their habitat, and the 
availability of these species for subsistence uses; and requirements 
for monitoring and reporting.

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA gives the Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary) the authority to allow the incidental, but not 
intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, in response to 
requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 18 (at 50 CFR 18.27(c)) engaged in a 
specified activity, other than commercial fishing, within a specified 
geographic region. The Secretary has delegated authority for 
implementation of the MMPA to the FWS. According to the MMPA, the FWS 
shall allow this incidental taking for a period of up to 5 consecutive 
years if we find that the total of such taking:
    (1) Will affect only small numbers of individuals of the species or 
stock;
    (2) Will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or 
stock;
    (3) Will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability 
of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use by Alaska 
Natives; and
    (4) We issue regulations that set forth:
    (a) Permissible methods of taking,
    (b) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the 
species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or 
stock for subsistence uses, and
    (c) Requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking.
    If final regulations allowing such incidental take are issued, we 
may then subsequently issue letters of authorization (LOAs), upon 
request, to authorize incidental take during the specified activities.
    The term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or 
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Harassment 
for activities other than military readiness activities or scientific 
research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government means 
``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential 
to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild'' (the 
MMPA defines this as ``Level A harassment''),

[[Page 66205]]

or ``(ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering'' (the MMPA defines this as ``Level B 
harassment'').
    The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact'' 
are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small takes of 
marine mammals incidental to specified activities) as follows: 
``Negligible impact'' is an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival. ``Unmitigable adverse impact'' 
means an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) that is 
likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level 
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the 
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly 
displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers 
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that 
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the 
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27. 
However, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates ``small 
numbers'' with ``negligible impact.'' We recognize ``small numbers'' 
and ``negligible impact'' as two separate and distinct requirements for 
promulgating ITRs under the MMPA (see Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 
Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 904 (9th Cir. 2012)). Instead, for our small 
numbers determination, we evaluate if the number of marine mammals 
estimated to be incidentally taken is small relative to the size of the 
species or stock.
    The term ``least practicable adverse impact'' is not defined in the 
MMPA or its implementing regulations. In promulgating ITRs, we ensure 
the least practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures 
that are effective in reducing the impact of specified activities, but 
not so restrictive as to make specified activities unduly burdensome or 
impossible to undertake and complete.
    In this rule, the term ``Industry'' includes individuals, 
companies, and organizations involved in exploration, development, 
production, and transportation activities of the petroleum industry. 
Industry activities may result in the incidental taking of Southern 
Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears and Pacific walruses (hereafter 
``walruses''). The MMPA does not require any party to obtain an 
incidental take authorization; however, any incidental taking that 
occurs without authorization is a violation of the MMPA. Since 1993, 
the oil and gas industry operating in the Beaufort Sea and the adjacent 
northern coast of Alaska has requested and we have issued ITRs for the 
incidental take of polar bears and walruses within a specified 
geographic region during specified activities. For a detailed history 
of our current and past Beaufort Sea ITRs, refer to the Federal 
Register at 90 FR 27398, June 26, 2025; 86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021; 81 
FR 52276, August 5, 2016; 76 FR 47010, August 3, 2011; 71 FR 43926, 
August 2, 2006; and 68 FR 66744, November 28, 2003.

Summary of Request

    On September 30, 2025, the FWS received a request from AOGA on 
behalf of its members and 8 Star Alaska, LLC to promulgate regulations 
for incidental take of small numbers of polar bears and walruses during 
oil and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation 
activities in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska 
for a period of 5 years (2026-2031) (hereafter referred to as the 
``Request''). The FWS deemed AOGA's Request as adequate and complete on 
January 12, 2026.
    The AOGA requested regulations that will be applicable to the oil 
and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation 
activities of multiple companies specified in the Request. This 
includes AOGA member companies and 8 Star Alaska, LLC that have applied 
for these regulations. The companies represented in the Request (as 
modified via subsequent communication from AOGA concerning membership 
changes) include: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; APA Corporation; 
BlueCrest Energy, Inc.; Chevron Corporation; ConocoPhillips Alaska, 
Inc. (CPAI); ExxonMobil Alaska Production, Inc. (ExxonMobil); Hex 
Operating, LLC; Glacier Oil and Gas Corporation (Glacier); Hilcorp 
Alaska, LLC and Hilcorp North Slope, LLC (Hilcorp); Marathon Petroleum 
Corporation; Petro Star, Inc.; Repsol; Santos; Shell Exploration and 
Production Company (Shell); and 8 Star Alaska, LLC (a non-member 
company).
    The activities within the scope of the Request are consistent with 
the nature of oil and gas activities that have occurred on the Alaska 
North Slope for decades. Those activities have occurred in parallel 
with monitoring and reporting that has provided a record of polar bear 
interactions in connection with such activities. To date, we have not 
made any determination of an effect on more than small numbers, a more 
than negligible impact, or an unmitigatable adverse impact on the 
availability for taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives for polar 
bears or Pacific walruses in the Alaska North Slope from oil and gas 
activities. AOGA has indicated that not all activities described in the 
Request will actually occur during the ITR period, noting the broad 
scope of activities in the Request was included to support a 
comprehensive analysis and account for variability.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Regulations

    In preparing the final rule for the incidental take of polar bears 
and walruses, we reviewed and considered comments and information from 
the public on our proposed ITR published in the Federal Register on 
March 9, 2026 (91 FR 11240). We also reviewed and considered comments 
and information from the public on our draft EA. Based on public 
comment on these and other issues in the proposed ITR and draft EA, the 
final rule reflects the following changes:
    <bullet> The requester asked FWS to clarify the LOA process; 
specifically requesting FWS issue LOAs for activities within the scope 
and type of activities described in the Petition without detailed data 
requirements or new model runs. We have clarified the LOA process in 
the regulatory text at 50 CFR 18.123.
    <bullet> The requester asked FWS to revisit our predictive 
estimates for vessel impacts, as they felt some routes were being 
double counted. Some routes were found to be counted in both the vessel 
analysis and the surface analysis. We have accordingly updated these 
estimates.
    <bullet> The requester noted several small editorial errors. These 
errors did not substantially affect the content of the preamble. They 
have been corrected.
    <bullet> The requester asked for several small points of 
clarification in the description of their specified activities. These 
included clarifying the following: helicopters will not knowingly hover 
over polar bear dens, ice roads may be used to access wells for 
plugging and abandonment, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may be used 
for environmental studies, geophones may not necessarily be placed in 
the ground, airborne gravity and airborne magnetic surveys may use 
rotary or fixed-wing aircraft, and aerial pipeline surveys may be

[[Page 66206]]

conducted with fixed-wing aircraft in addition to rotary aircraft. None 
of these impact any take estimates.
    <bullet> The requester stated the mitigation measure requiring 
vessels to maintain the ``maximum distance possible'' from polar bears 
and walruses was too vague. In response, FWS has changed the language 
to ``maximum distance practicable (805 m (0.5 mi) or greater).'' This 
change does not affect any take estimates. FWS take estimates were 
calculated under the assumption that polar bears may be harassed within 
a 1.6 kilometer (km) (1 mile (mi)) impact area surrounding vessels.
    <bullet> The requester stated skirting around facilities is not 
current practice, is not necessary, and is not operationally possible. 
We have removed discussion of this mitigation measure. This change does 
not affect any take estimates.
    <bullet> The requester stated that conducting a required third 
aerial infrared (AIR) survey of polar bear included in the proposed ITR 
as an additional mitigation measure is not practicable due to 
logistical, human safety, and economic factors. As explained below, the 
FWS concluded that a third AIR survey is not practicable and has 
removed this additional mitigation measure.
    <bullet> Commenters noted a discrepancy in the title of Subpart J 
which has been corrected.
    <bullet> The requester and other commentors also noted the 
substantial differences between the historical data and the results 
from the predictive model and questioned whether the use of the model 
accurately estimates ``take'' of the species under the MMPA. We 
recognize the limitations of the predictive model and take estimates 
that significantly exceed historical data and AOGA take estimates. For 
that reason, the Service affirmatively considers other information and 
does not give its predictive models more weight than those other 
sources of information. FWS is clarifying that it considered all 
information before it, namely: monitoring encounters and interactions 
between the at-issue species and the oil and gas industry; research on 
these species; oil spill risk assessments; potential and documented 
effects on these species from similar activities; information regarding 
the natural history and conservation status of polar bears and Pacific 
walruses; and data reported from Alaska Native subsistence hunters; the 
FWS model; and AOGA's take estimates. FWS considers all these inputs in 
line with Executive Order (E.O.) 14303, ``Restoring Gold Standard 
Science.'' We recognize that, if it considered the model absent 
considering qualitative factors and AOGA's take estimates, it would not 
be considering the ``best available science.'' In other words, 
considering all these inputs ensures the ``best available scientific 
evidence'' is used to support the determinations in this ITR.
    We also present in the preamble of this final ITR revised estimates 
from the FWS predictive modeling efforts, specifically the estimates of 
impacts to denning bears. Through the process of further streamlining 
the code for the predictive denning model, we discovered two errors 
causing inaccurate model outputs. In the first error, dens that had 
zero cubs naturally (a roughly 7 percent chance in the model) but were 
simulated to receive lethal or level A harassment were being counted 
when we summarized the number of dens impacted in those categories. 
While the simulated den was impacted in terms of the sow, there could 
not be any harassment of cubs because they did not exist. In the second 
error, a line of code was identified that was causing an error in the 
counting of a single category of disturbance events.
    The model relies on a simulation of polar bear dens across the 
landscape, followed by simulated exposure to project activities, and 
finally simulated disturbance (for some of the dens). We iterate this 
10,000 times so that we can account for variation in different aspects 
of polar bear denning biology (e.g., date of entry, birthdate, number 
of cubs, emergence date) as well as the random element of whether 
disturbance occurred based on empirical probabilities. We then 
calculate summary statistics for each kind of take, such as the 
probability of occurrence, mean, median, and upper and lower confidence 
intervals.
    One line of code led to a single unaccounted category of dens. 
These dens were previously undisturbed in early and late denning but 
disturbed in the post-emergence period. That line of code has been 
fixed, the remaining code has been reviewed to ensure it does not have 
similar issues, and a series of auto-check functions have been written 
to ensure a similar issue doesn't present during future code updates.
    To describe the change plainly, instead of coding to ``count all 
the dens specifically marked undisturbed'' we changed the code to 
``count all dens except for those that were marked disturbed.'' This 
change is necessary because the latter statement also selects those 
dens with a ``missing'' value where the former does not. Missing values 
in the code were present because the den was not labeled ``disturbed'' 
at the previous denning stages.
    As a result of the code repairs, some FWS take estimates have 
changed. The estimated probability of lethal take has decreased 
slightly because we were using a den count to calculate the 
probability, and a small number of zero-cub dens were included in the 
calculation. Level A and Level B harassment estimates have increased as 
they now account for impacts to previously undisturbed dens that are 
simulated to exhibit a disturbance response in the post emergence 
period. The probabilities of such dens experiencing Level B (applicable 
to the sow) and Level A harassment (applicable to any cubs) is 28 
percent and 72 percent respectively. This is a change from the faulty 
output, which did not count any take for these dens (i.e., 0 percent 
take).

Description of the Regulations

    These regulations facilitate the authorization of the incidental, 
unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears and walruses that 
may result from the specified activities. They do not authorize or 
``permit'' the specified activities themselves. The regulations 
include:
    (1) Permissible methods of taking;
    (2) Measures designed to ensure the least practicable adverse 
impact on polar bears and walruses, their habitat, and on the 
availability of these species or stocks for subsistence uses; and
    (3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

Description of Letters of Authorization (LOAs)

    An LOA is required to conduct activities pursuant to ITRs. Under 
these ITRs, eligible parties may request LOAs that would authorize 
incidental take of polar bears and walruses resulting from the 
specified activities described in these ITRs. Eligible parties are the 
member companies and 8 Star Alaska, LLC as specified in AOGA's Request, 
and their corporate affiliates, respective contractors, subcontractors, 
partners, owners, co-lessees, designees, or successors-in-interest. 
Requests for LOAs must be consistent with the activity descriptions and 
mitigation and monitoring requirements of the ITRs and be received in 
writing at least 90 days before the activity is to begin. Requests must 
include (1) an operational plan for the activity, including the timing 
of work and the nature of work to be conducted; (2) an interaction plan 
for polar bears and walruses; (3) a site-specific marine mammal 
monitoring and mitigation plan that specifies the procedures to monitor 
and mitigate the effects of the

[[Page 66207]]

activities on polar bears and walruses; and (4) plans of cooperation 
(if required as described in Mitigation Measures, below). Once this 
information has been received, we will evaluate whether the level of 
activity identified in the LOA request exceeds that analyzed by us in 
considering the findings made for the total taking allowable under 
these ITRs. If the level of activity exceeds that analyzed, the FWS may 
request additional information. For more information on requesting and 
receiving an LOA, refer to 50 CFR 18.27(f).

Description of Specified Geographic Region and Specified Activities

    The specified geographic region covered by the requested ITRs 
(Beaufort Sea ITR region, see figure 1, below) encompasses all Beaufort 
Sea waters (including State waters and OCS waters as defined by the 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) east of a north-south line extending 
from Point Barrow (latitude 71.39139[deg] N, longitude 156.475[deg] W; 
Board on Geographic Names (BGN) 1944) to the Canadian border, except 
for marine waters located within the ANWR. The offshore boundary 
extends 80.5 km (50 mi) offshore. The onshore boundary includes land on 
the North Slope of Alaska from Point Barrow to the western boundary of 
ANWR. The onshore boundary is 40 km (25 mi) inland. No lands or waters 
within the exterior boundaries of ANWR are included in the Beaufort Sea 
ITR region. The geographical extent of the proposed Beaufort Sea ITR 
region (approximately 7.9 million hectares (ha) (approximately 19.8 
million acres (ac))) is the same region covered in previous regulations 
set forth in the final rule that published at 86 FR 42982, August 5, 
2021 and revised at 90 FR 27398, June 26, 2025. The specified 
geographic region includes but is not limited to the following oil and 
gas development areas on the North Slope of Alaska: Nikaitchuq, 
Oooguruk, Badami, Northstar, Endicott (Duck Island), Liberty, Milne 
Point, Point Thomson, Prudhoe Bay, Pikka, Quokka, Southern Miluveach, 
Kuparuk River, Greater Mooses Tooth, Colville River, Horseshoe, and 
Bear Tooth.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC26.000

    The specified activities include oil and gas exploration, 
development, production, and transportation activities within the 
specified geographic region. This section summarizes the type and scale 
of Industry activities anticipated to

[[Page 66208]]

occur in the Beaufort Sea ITR region from 2026 to 2031. Year-round 
onshore and offshore Industry activities are anticipated. During the 5-
year ITR period, Industry activities are expected to be generally 
similar in type, timing, and effect to activities evaluated under the 
prior ITRs. Additional information is available in the Request at 
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694.

Transportation and Staging

    Transportation activities will include aircraft operations; vehicle 
and equipment operations on gravel roads, gravel pads, ice roads, and 
ice pads; vehicle operations on tundra; and vessel transit and barging 
operations.
    Aircraft operations will consist of personnel and cargo transport 
flights to support operations, aerial pipeline inspections, and 
environmental monitoring surveys. Personnel and cargo flights will be 
conducted routinely throughout the Beaufort Sea ITR region to support 
operations, and the frequency of these flights may vary depending on 
the location and type of operation. Fixed-wing aircraft will generally 
be used to transport personnel and cargo across development areas. 
Helicopters will be used to transport personnel and cargo to coastal or 
offshore facilities and to access remote areas. Flight altitude for 
personnel and cargo transport flights will generally be above 305 
meters (m) (1,000 feet (ft)) above ground level unless inclement 
weather requires a lower flight altitude for personnel safety. Aerial 
pipeline inspections will be conducted frequently year-round using 
helicopters, UAVs, or fixed-wing aircraft. Environmental monitoring 
surveys will be conducted using helicopters, UAVs, or fixed-wing 
aircraft depending on the type of survey and the frequency of these 
environmental monitoring surveys will vary across location and time of 
year during the ITR period.
    Vehicle and equipment operations will occur on the existing gravel 
road system and gravel pads within the ITR region to support 
operations. Expansion of existing gravel roads and gravel pads as well 
as construction of new gravel roads and gravel pads will be conducted 
to support operations as needed throughout the ITR period. Gravel roads 
and pads typically will be constructed or expanded during the winter, 
although new gravel placement on the tundra may occur during any 
season. Equipment that will be used to construct or expand gravel roads 
and pads includes all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), graders, loaders, 
excavators, rollers, dump trucks, tractors, bulldozers, vehicles, and 
other heavy equipment. Gravel road and pad maintenance will occur as 
needed to support transportation and operations throughout the ITR 
period. Gravel will be obtained from existing gravel mine sites and new 
gravel mine sites that may be developed within the ITR region.
    During the winter, ice roads and ice pads will be constructed both 
onshore and offshore to support vehicle and equipment transportation 
and operations. The number, size, and personnel occupancy of ice roads 
and pads will vary each winter depending on the operations. Some ice 
roads will be constructed annually in the same location and other ice 
roads will be constructed in different locations based on operation 
requirements that vary during the ITR period. Offshore ice roads, 
trails, and pads will be constructed on floating sea ice or grounded 
ice in shallow water (less than 2 m (7 ft)). Offshore ice roads, 
trails, and pads may be constructed as early as December and be used 
until May during each winter. Equipment that will be used to construct 
ice roads, trails, and pads includes tracked vehicles, tractors, 
snowplows, pump trucks, ATVs, graders, and loaders.
    Vehicle operations will occur on the tundra to support surveys, 
scout transportation routes, conduct environmental monitoring studies, 
and support infrastructure inspections and maintenance activities. 
Tundra travel will occur year-round throughout the ITR period. 
Equipment that will be used for tundra travel includes tracked 
vehicles, ATVs, snowmachines, Tucker Sno-Cat vehicles, and Rolligons.
    Vessel transit and barging operations will support transportation 
of personnel, equipment, and supplies for operations. There are several 
marine dock facilities that will be used to support vessel transit and 
barging operations in the ITR region including West Dock, Oliktok Dock, 
and other private dock facilities in development areas. West Dock is 
located on the northwestern shore of Prudhoe Bay east of Point 
McIntyre. Oliktok Dock is located on the eastern side of West Harrison 
Bay at Oliktok Point. Maintenance dredging or screeding will be 
conducted as needed at the marine dock facilities. The majority of the 
vessel transit and barging operations will occur during the open-water 
season (July through October). Vessels of various sizes will be used to 
support transportation activities and may include crew boats, 
hovercrafts, zodiac vessels, and catamarans. Hovercrafts will also be 
used to transport personnel and cargo during both the ice-covered 
season and open-water season. Barges, sealifts, and tugboats will be 
used to transport facility modules, construction materials, cargo, 
fuel, and other heavy equipment during the open-water season. Sealifts 
are anticipated to occur over multiple years of the ITR period to 
transport facility modules to Oliktok Dock or West Dock, and offloading 
of sealifts may occur in and around offshore, subtidal, or intertidal 
areas of the Beaufort Sea. Barge lightering may be used to transfer 
cargo between vessels to allow vessels to enter shallow water. Barges 
may be transferred to shallow draft tugs for nearshore transportation. 
During offloading, barges may be staged offshore if dock space is 
limited.

Surveys and Studies

    A variety of surveys and studies will be conducted such as 
geophysical surveys, airborne gravity/magnetic surveys, geotechnical 
surveys, seismic exploration surveys, vibroseis seismic surveys, 
vertical seismic profiles (VSPs), seafloor imaging, offshore bathymetry 
surveys, shallow hazard surveys, open-water marine vibroseis surveys, 
environmental monitoring studies, and AIR surveys to detect polar bear 
dens. These surveys and studies may occur with routine frequency or be 
conducted as needed for specific projects. The specific locations and 
numbers of surveys and studies will vary depending on location-specific 
and operation-specific needs throughout the ITR period.
    Geophysical surveys will be conducted to collect information about 
subsurface geology. Geophysical survey personnel will survey the 
surface of the land or seafloor to collect information on near-surface 
hazards that can be avoided during drilling operations or map deep 
strata beneath the surface of the ground to search for gas and oil-
bearing rock formations. Geophysical surveys will occur routinely at 
existing development areas.
    Airborne gravity and airborne magnetic surveys will record passive 
measurements of the Earth's gravitational and magnetic fields to 
collect information on potential geologic structures that may contain 
oil and gas. Surveys will use rotary-wing or fixed-wing aircraft. 
Survey flight altitudes for rotary-wing aircraft will range from 91.5 m 
(300 ft) to 152.4 m (500 ft) above ground level. Survey flight altitude 
for fixed-wing aircraft will be a minimum of 152.4 m (500 ft) above sea 
level.
    Geotechnical surveys will consist of collecting shallow core 
samples to provide information about soil conditions where onshore and 
offshore

[[Page 66209]]

roads, pipelines, structures, or other facilities are planned to be 
constructed or to locate gravel sources. Geotechnical surveys will 
often occur simultaneously with other operations such as ice or gravel 
road construction or seismic exploration surveys. Geotechnical survey 
personnel will generally use winter tundra travel routes to access 
their survey areas and use a geotechnical drill unit to collect the 
core samples. A small mobile camp to support the survey personnel and 
other machinery will often be used during these geotechnical surveys. 
Geotechnical surveys will occur routinely at existing development 
areas.
    Seismic exploration surveys will collect information on the 
subsurface structure of rock formations. Sound energy waves will be 
sent into the ground using an energy source such as an airgun or 
vibroseis, where different layers within the Earth's crust reflect this 
energy. These reflected energy waves will be recorded by geophones to 
identify hydrocarbon-containing structures. Vibroseis seismic 
operations will use truck-mounted vibrators that emit frequency energy 
into the ground, and these operations may occur both onshore and on sea 
ice. Vibroseis seismic operations may consist of 40 to 200 personnel, 
small and heavy equipment, and a mobile sled-mounted camp to support 
personnel. Vibroseis seismic operations may occur during the winter 
from January through May.
    The VSP surveys will consist of lowering geophones into a well bore 
on land and repeatedly activating the energy source to gather seismic 
data from the well. These surveys will be conducted both on and off a 
drill pad, extending up to 5 km (3 mi) from the drilling rig, and up to 
eight personnel will conduct these surveys.
    Seafloor imagery surveys will collect information about the 
seafloor by emitting sound energy towards the seafloor and interpreting 
the reflected sound energy to create a two-dimensional image of the 
seafloor and any features or objects on it. Equipment that will be used 
during these seafloor imagery surveys includes side-scan sonar that is 
towed behind a vessel. Side-scan sonar will generally emit high-
frequency sound greater than 200 kilohertz (kHz).
    Offshore bathymetry studies will collect information about the 
water depth, seafloor contours, hazards, and other environmental 
conditions. Equipment that will be used during these bathymetry surveys 
includes echosounders, such as a single-beam or multi-beam sonar 
device, that is mounted on the vessel's hull or on a side-mounted pole. 
Single-beam sonar devices emit a high-frequency single pulse of sound 
to record water depth, and these devices may operate at a frequency of 
either 100 kHz or 200 kHz. Multi-beam sonar devices will be composed of 
a transducer array that emits a swath of sound, motion sensor on the 
vessel, gyrocompass on the vessel, and a sound velocity probe in order 
to create a three-dimensional view of the seafloor. Multi-beam sonar 
devices may generally operate at a frequency of 240 kHz.
    Shallow hazard surveys will collect information about the seafloor 
and immediate subsurface. Equipment that will be used during these 
shallow hazard surveys includes a high-frequency sub-bottom profiler, 
intermediate-frequency profiler, and a multi-channel system, which is 
an array of hydrophones towed by a vessel to receive reflected sound 
energy emitted by the sparker. Different types of sub-bottom profilers 
may be used depending on the type of seafloor imagery required for the 
shallow hazard surveys and the general frequency of this equipment may 
range from 0.3 to 20 kHz.
    Open-water marine vibroseis may be conducted as a potential 
alternative to using traditional airguns for offshore oil and gas 
surveys. Equipment that will be used during these marine vibroseis 
surveys includes a vibrating plate or shell to displace water to 
produce acoustic signals.
    Environmental monitoring studies to support oil and gas activities 
will include but are not limited to those that examine geomorphology 
(soils, ice content, permafrost); archaeology and cultural resources; 
vegetation mapping; analysis of fish, bird, and mammal species and 
their habitat; acoustic monitoring; hydrology; and other freshwater, 
marine, and terrestrial studies of the Arctic coastal and offshore 
regions. Environmental monitoring studies may be conducted by 
individual operators or in cooperation with other entities such as 
government agencies, academic institutions, or local communities. These 
environmental monitoring studies will often be conducted in response to 
regulatory requirements and may occur across multiple years. Equipment 
that will be used during environmental monitoring studies may include 
vehicles, vessels, snow machines or tuckers, helicopters, UAVs, or 
fixed-wing aircraft depending on the type of study. Flight altitudes 
for fixed-wing aircraft may range from 30 m (98 ft) to 450 m (1,476 ft) 
depending on the type of study. Environmental monitoring surveys will 
be conducted to fulfill regulatory and permit requirements and support 
natural resource exploration and development in the ITR region 
throughout the ITR period.
    AIR surveys will be conducted to detect maternal polar bear dens 
near Industry each winter. Infrared cameras mounted on a fixed-wing 
aircraft will be used to detect body heat from denning female polar 
bears that permeates through the snow.

Well Drilling and Production

    Drilling, production, and maintenance of operating wells for oil 
and gas exploration, development, and production at existing facilities 
will occur throughout the ITR period. Industry also plans to drill new 
exploration, appraisal, and production wells within the ITR region 
depending on resources and other factors. The number and location of 
these well drilling and maintenance activities will vary throughout the 
ITR period, but the level of these activities is anticipated to be 
similar to previous years. New wells may require construction of new 
gravel pads or new gravel roads or ice roads to access well locations. 
New wells may also require installation of stream crossings, vertical 
support members (VSMs), pipelines, power cables, and fiber optic cables 
to support well drilling and production activities. Temporary camps may 
be established to accommodate personnel during well drilling and 
production activities as needed. Equipment that will be used to support 
well drilling, production, and maintenance activities includes drill 
rigs, pumps, processing facilities, and support infrastructure. 
Industry plans to conduct plugging and abandonment of wells that are 
currently suspended or will be suspended during the ITR period. The 
number of wells that may be plugged and abandoned will vary each year 
throughout the ITR period, but the level of these activities is 
anticipated to be similar to previous years. These activities may be 
supported by aircraft or vehicles using ice roads or the existing road 
network depending on the location of the well that will be plugged and 
abandoned.
    Artificial and natural islands along the Beaufort Sea coastline may 
serve as well drilling platforms for offshore production. Artificial 
islands may be constructed at various times of the year using a 
combination of gravel, boulders, artificial structures, or ice. 
Vibratory and impact pile driving will be conducted to install 
conductor pipes, foundation pipes, and sheet piles to support 
development of the islands for production. Monitoring and maintenance 
of the islands used for

[[Page 66210]]

production will be conducted as needed throughout the ITR period. 
Monitoring inspections may use sonar and divers, and these inspections 
may occur multiple times throughout each year of the ITR period 
depending on weather and wave conditions.

Pipelines

    Maintenance of existing terrestrial pipelines (buried and above 
ground) and subsea pipelines to transport oil and gas products will 
occur throughout the ITR period. Pipeline inspections and maintenance 
activities will be conducted by tundra travel vehicles throughout the 
year. Industry will replace and extend existing pipelines and 
associated infrastructure as needed to maintain the integrity of the 
pipeline system throughout the ITR region. New pipelines may be 
installed within the ITR region to transport oil and gas products from 
existing wells or new wells. Pipeline installation will generally occur 
during winter and ice roads will be constructed to support pipeline 
installation. VSMs will be installed using vibratory and impact pile 
driving or drilling to support pipelines above ground.

Support Facilities, Infrastructure and Functions

    Support facilities and infrastructure include the Deadhorse 
Airport, Dalton Highway, and Spine Road to transport personnel, 
equipment, and supplies across the North Slope of Alaska. Permanent 
camps will be used to house personnel at operation centers, processing 
facilities, drill sites, and other similar facilities. Temporary camps 
may be installed for specific projects or travel with personnel to 
complete projects as needed. Other support functions will include waste 
management, emergency response training for personnel, in-water 
dredging and screeding to remove or deposit sediment materials and 
smooth the seafloor for in-water operations, and pile driving to 
construct docks and land structures.
    Waste management protocols will be implemented in an effort to 
minimize interactions with wildlife. Solid waste from camps will be 
disposed of at the Oxbow Landfill in the Prudhoe Bay Development or 
other permitted facilities. Food and burnable waste will be incinerated 
when feasible. Food waste will be carefully managed to avoid attracting 
wildlife such as placing food waste in wildlife-proof receptacles. 
Drilling and production waste will be injected into underground 
injection control disposal wells where it will be inaccessible to 
wildlife and will not have the potential to contact any sources of 
groundwater or surface soils. Hazardous waste will be kept inside 
closed containers and disposed of in accordance with applicable 
regulations.
    Emergency and oil spill response training activities for personnel 
will occur at various times throughout the year during the ITR period. 
Oil spill equipment deployment exercises conducted during the ice-
covered period will use snowmachines, ATVs, portable generators, skid 
steer loaders, snow blowers, and various types of equipment to cut ice 
slots or drill holes through floating sea ice. Other equipment and 
supplies that will be used during emergency response training 
activities include vessels, trucks, booms, and sorbents. The location 
and frequency of emergency and oil spill response training activities 
will vary depending on the sea ice or winter tundra conditions and 
training requirements.
    In-water dredging and screeding will be conducted to remove and 
deposit seafloor sediment and smooth the seafloor to support in-water 
operations. These activities will be conducted during the open-water 
season of each year at various dock locations including but not limited 
to Oliktok Dock and West Dock. Dredging may also be conducted during 
the winter depending on conditions. Equipment that will be used for 
dredging includes a barge-mounted suction dredge, excavator, or a crane 
with a dredging bucket on a barge platform. Equipment that will be used 
for screeding includes a device such as a plow or rake-like structure 
that is attached to a barge or backhoe.
    Pile driving or drilling activities will be conducted to support 
construction or repair of docks, bridges, and offshore or riverine 
structures as needed throughout the ITR period. Pile driving activities 
may include vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, drilling, and 
down-the-hole drilling, and the pile driving methods, depending on the 
project requirements.

Anticipated Future Projects

    Industry anticipates that the oil and gas exploration and 
development activities described above will continue at levels similar 
to previous years during the ITR period throughout the ITR region. 
There are also several new projects anticipated for the ITR period in 
addition to the routine oil and gas operations described above. Those 
projects are described in AOGA's Request and are not a comprehensive or 
exhaustive list of future projects that will occur during the ITR 
period. The scope of future projects and their associated schedules may 
change, and some listed projects may not occur at all. All projects 
that do occur, and for which LOAs are requested under these ITRs, will 
fall within the class of oil and gas exploration, production, 
development, and transportation activities described in AOGA's Request 
(and appendices) and summarized above.

Mitigation Measures

    The applicant has proposed a decision framework and a number of 
mitigation measures in section 9 of their Request to minimize the 
potential effects of proposed activities on polar bears and walruses 
and effect the least practicable adverse impacts on those stocks. 
AOGA's proposed measures include mitigation for general avoidance and 
minimization that apply to a variety of their planned activities as 
well as measures specific to aircraft and vessels; they have also 
included in their Request plans for conducting maternal polar bear den 
surveys and methods for minimizing the impacts of their activities on 
the subsistence harvest of polar bears and walruses.
    The general avoidance and minimization measures proposed in AOGA's 
Request include maintaining a current polar bear and walrus interaction 
plan in coordination with the FWS that details their protocols for food 
and waste management, training, snow removal, polar bear and walrus 
avoidance and encounters, and polar bear and walrus reporting 
procedures. The applicant also intends to continue to design facilities 
and plan projects in such a way that polar bears' access to attractants 
is reduced. Further, they will maintain designated personnel for 
specific activities to observe and record observations of polar bears 
and walruses. Finally, they highlight how they will continue to avoid 
operating equipment in potential den locations.
    Proposed mitigation measures for aircraft use include not flying 
below an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) or within 805 m (0.5 mi) of polar 
bears or walruses observed on ice or land except in emergency 
situations. Helicopters will not be allowed to hover or circle over 
polar bears, known polar bear dens, or walruses. Additionally, the 
applicant has proposed that if weather conditions prevent flying at an 
altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) or higher, that the pilot will avoid areas 
of known polar bear and walrus concentration.
    The proposed measures for vessel use include having observers to 
monitor for polar bears and walruses during marine operations and 
maintaining the maximum distance practicable (805 m

[[Page 66211]]

(0.5 mi) or greater) from concentrations of polar bears or walruses. 
Polar bears or walruses observed on land or sea will not be approached 
within an 805-m (0.5-mi) radius except in the case of an emergency. 
Furthermore, vessels will not separate groups of two or more walruses 
and will reduce speed and maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi) exclusion 
zone around groups of 12 or more walruses in the water or polar bears 
on ice. Vessels that are over 15 m (50 ft) long will maintain a 
distance of 805 m (0.5 mi) from any walrus haulout. When visibility is 
reduced, vessels will adjust speed accordingly to decrease the 
likelihood of injury to walruses.
    LOA holders will survey for maternal polar bear dens via AIR during 
the early polar bear denning season, in November through January. LOA 
holders will conduct one AIR survey of all denning habitat within 1.6 
km (1 mi) of winter activity. This survey would occur in November or 
December. LOA holders will also conduct a second survey of denning 
habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of winter activities in the high and 
moderate denning density zones established by FWS (for more information 
about the creation of denning density zones and a map, a summary of 
this information is available in supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694). The second 
survey would occur in December or January. Additionally, surveyed 
locations that yield heat signatures indicating the possible presence 
of a maternal polar bear den will be re-surveyed. Protocols for 
conducting the maternal polar bear den surveys are documented in 
section 9.2 of the Request. If AIR surveys yield any putative polar 
bear dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) of planned activities, AOGA will consult 
with the FWS to create a mitigation zone around the suspected den site 
such that it will not be disturbed by any project activities for the 
remainder of the denning season (November to April). The applicant has 
also proposed follow-up surveys via AIR, handheld or vehicle-mounted 
infrared cameras or binoculars, or the use of unmanned aerial systems 
(UAS) to confirm den presence or identify when the den is no longer in 
use. Known active den sites will be monitored by personnel in trucks or 
off-road vehicles, or by remote cameras that can record or stream data. 
This monitoring of polar bears' activity can assist with avoiding 
disturbance, especially during the den emergence period when polar bear 
sows and cubs make repeated short trips outside before returning to the 
den. Monitoring will be conducted from an appropriate distance 
established in consultation with the FWS to avoid disturbance from the 
monitoring activities. Finally, personnel working during the den 
emergence period will be trained to look for signs of polar bear dens 
in their work areas and dedicated personnel may be assigned to monitor 
work areas for polar bears to protect workers and allow polar bears to 
pass through undisturbed.
    Trained and qualified personnel will continue to monitor for, 
record, and report polar bear and walrus observations, and initiate 
mitigation measures (Request, sections 9 and 10). LOA holders will 
report the efficacy of mitigation measures and any observed effects of 
Industry activities on these species. Monitoring personnel will 
complete a training program approved by FWS. Details of the monitoring 
procedures will be provided in an FWS-approved, site- and project-
specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan.
    To help ensure that incidental taking of polar bears and walruses 
does not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the 
species for Alaska Native subsistence hunting opportunities, the 
Request states all LOA applicants will provide the FWS documentation of 
communication and coordination with Alaska Native communities 
potentially affected by the specified activity and, as appropriate, 
with representative subsistence hunting and co-management 
organizations. If Alaska Native communities or representative 
subsistence hunting organizations express concerns about the potential 
impacts of specified activities on subsistence activities, and such 
concerns are not resolved during this initial communication and 
coordination process, then a plan of cooperation (POC) must be 
developed and submitted with the applicant's request for an LOA. In 
developing the POC, the LOA applicant will further engage with Alaska 
Native communities and/or representative subsistence hunting 
organizations to provide information and respond to questions and 
concerns. The POC must provide adequate measures to ensure that 
specified activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of polar bears and walruses for Alaska Native subsistence 
uses.
    Should community outreach result in concerns about adverse impacts 
to subsistence harvest from the planned activities, the Request states 
that LOA holders will develop a POC to address those concerns and 
prevent interference with the subsistence harvest. Regardless of the 
need for a POC, the applicant will limit the timing of activities 
(including aircraft- and vessel-based activities) and avoid known 
locations of importance for the subsistence harvest of polar bears and 
walruses.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region

    Polar bears and walruses are the marine mammal species managed by 
the FWS likely found within the specified geographic region. 
Information on the range, stocks, biology, and other impacts on polar 
bears and walruses was considered in the development of these ITRs. A 
summary of this information is available in supplemental information on 
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694.

Potential Impacts of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals

Impacts of Surface Activities on Polar Bears

    Disturbance impacts on polar bears will be influenced by the type, 
duration, intensity, timing, and location of the source of disturbance. 
The noises, sights, and smells produced by these activities could 
elicit variable responses from polar bears, ranging from avoidance to 
attraction. When disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally 
by walking, running, or swimming away from a noise source, or 
physiologically via increased heart rates or hormonal stress responses 
(Harms et al. 1997; Tempel and Gutierrez 2003). However, individual 
response to noise disturbance can be based on previous interactions, 
sex, age, and maternal status (Anderson and Aars 2008; Dyck and Baydack 
2004). Noise and odors could also potentially attract polar bears to 
work areas. Attracting polar bears to these locations could result in 
human-polar bear interactions, incidental harassment, and/or 
intentional take (which is not authorized via ITRs) by hazing or 
defense of human life. The Request includes mitigation measures to 
manage attractants in work areas and reduce the risk of human-polar 
bear interactions.

Human-Polar Bear Interactions

    From mid-July to mid-November, SBS polar bears can be found in 
large numbers and high densities on barrier islands, along the 
coastline, and in the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea, 
particularly on and around Barter and Cross Islands (Wilson et al. 
2017). This distribution leads to a significantly higher number of 
human-polar bear interactions on land and at offshore structures during 
the open-water season

[[Page 66212]]

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.
    A larger percentage of SBS polar bears are spending more time on 
land during the open-water season, which may increase the risk for 
human-polar bear interactions (Atwood et al. 2016; Kelner et al. 2022; 
Rode et al. 2022). It is likely that human-polar bear interactions will 
occur at some point during the specified activities. Per the Request, 
operators would maintain human--polar bear interaction plans and 
attractant management plans, design facilities and plan projects to 
reduce the possibility of polar bears reaching attractants and humans, 
and monitor for polar bears. These plans and requirements are designed 
to reduce human-polar bear interactions and minimize the risks to polar 
bears and humans when interactions occur. Interaction plans detail how 
to respond to the presence of polar bears, the chain of command and 
communication, and required training for personnel. Attractant (e.g., 
human food, garbage) management plans can prevent polar bears from 
associating humans with food, which mitigates the risk of human-polar 
bear interactions (Atwood and Wilder 2021). Information gained from 
monitoring polar bears near industrial infrastructure can be useful for 
better understanding polar bear distribution, behavior, and 
interactions with humans. Tools that may be used to facilitate 
detection and monitoring of polar bears include bear monitors, thermal 
cameras, and remotely operated cameras.

Effects of Aircraft Activities on Polar Bears

    The Federal Aviation Administration tests aircraft-produced sound 
at all measured frequencies (50 hertz (Hz) to 10 kHz) (Healy 1974). At 
frequencies centered at 5 kHz, jets flying at 300 m (984 ft) produced 
\1/3\ octave band noise levels of 84 to 124 decibels (dB), propeller-
driven aircraft produced 75 to 90 dB, and helicopters produced 60 to 70 
dB (Richardson et al. 1995). Thus, the frequency and level of airborne 
sounds typically produced by aircraft are unlikely to cause either 
temporary or permanent impairment to polar bear hearing unless polar 
bears are very close to the sound source (Southall et al. 2019).
    Although neither temporary nor permanent hearing impairment is 
anticipated during the specified activities, aircraft overflights have 
the potential to elicit behavioral responses from polar bears. Exposure 
to aircraft overflights is expected to result in short-term behavior 
changes, such as walking, running, or ceasing to rest and, therefore, 
has the potential to increase energetic costs. Quigley et al. (2022 and 
2024) conducted intentional aircraft overflights above polar bears to 
determine their responses to overflights. Researchers approached polar 
bears repeatedly at decreasing altitudes with an average flight 
altitude of 143 m (469 ft). Polar bears exhibited biologically 
meaningful behavioral responses during 66.6 percent of experimental 
overflights. These behavioral responses were significantly correlated 
with the aircraft's altitude, the polar bear's location (e.g., 
coastline, barrier island), and the polar bear's activity at the time 
of the encounter. In a separate study, polar bears associated with dens 
were exposed to aircraft flying at altitudes of 150 m (492 ft) or less 
and exhibited various responses that ranged from increased head 
movement and observation of the disturbance to the initiation of rapid 
movement and/or den abandonment (Larson et al. 2020). Aircraft 
activities can impact polar bears across all seasons; however, aircraft 
have a greater potential to disturb both individuals and groups of 
polar bears on land during the summer and fall. These onshore polar 
bears are primarily fasting or seeking alternative terrestrial foods 
(Cherry et al. 2009; Griffen et al. 2022), and polar bear responses to 
aircraft overflights may result in metabolic costs to limited energy 
reserves. To reduce potential disturbance of polar bears during 
aircraft activities, the Request incorporates mitigation measures, such 
as minimum flight altitudes (457 m/1,500 ft) over polar bears and their 
frequently used areas and flight restrictions around known polar bear 
aggregations, to be conducted when safe to perform these operations 
during aircraft activities.

Effects of In-Water Activities on Polar Bears

    While polar bears swim in and hunt from open water, they spend less 
time in the water than most marine mammals. Stirling (1974) reported 
that polar bears observed near Devon Island during late July and early 
August spent 4.1 percent of their time swimming and an additional 0.7 
percent engaged in aquatic stalking of prey. More recently, Lone et al. 
(2018) found 75 percent of polar bears swam daily during open-water 
months, with animals spending 9.4 percent of their time in July in the 
water. While polar bears typically swim with their ears above water, 
there are occasions when a polar bear may dive and therefore have its 
ears below the surface.
    Polar bear behavior is expected to be impacted by the presence of 
humans and equipment in the water. In 2012, during the open-water 
season, Shell USA, Inc (Shell) vessels encountered a few polar bears 
swimming in ice-free water more than 112.6 km (70 mi) offshore in the 
Chukchi Sea. In those instances, the polar bears were observed to 
either swim away from or approach the Shell vessels, sometimes swimming 
around a stationary vessel before leaving. In at least one encounter, a 
polar bear approached, touched, and investigated a stationary vessel 
from the water before swimming away. We anticipate that polar bears 
that encounter vessels during the specified activities may have an 
evasive or curious response, similar to these reports.
    Some of the specified activities may introduce noise into the 
marine environment at sound levels capable of causing a behavioral 
change or temporary or permanent damage to polar bear hearing. However, 
the majority of the sound-producing instruments that will be used do 
not produce in-water sound above the threshold designated for Level B 
harassment or they do not produce sound within the hearing range of 
polar bears (for a discussion of this threshold and polar bear hearing 
see supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket 
No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694). Echosounders and side-scan sonar are 
typically operated at a frequency at or above 200 kHz, which is outside 
the hearing range for polar bears (Southall et al. 2019). Other 
equipment types, such as sub-bottom profilers and sparkers may produce 
sounds within the hearing range of polar bears (2 kHz to 16 kHz and 300 
Hz to 1.5 kHz, respectively), and at an estimated sound source level

[[Page 66213]]

above the Level B harassment threshold (202 decibels referenced to a 
pressure of 1 microPascal (dB re 1[micro]Pa)); however, their sound 
production is typically highly directional and focused within a narrow 
beam. While exposure to other underwater sounds such as those created 
by screeding, dredging, pile driving, or anchor handling and thrusting 
may cause changes in behavior, temporary or permanent changes in 
hearing sensitivity, or discomfort, polar bears are not expected to be 
frequently exposed because they do not typically swim with their heads 
under water unless diving (Lone et al. 2018).

Effects to Denning Polar Bears

    Known or suspected polar bear dens around the oilfield, discovered 
opportunistically and/or during planned surveys for tracking marked 
polar bears and detecting polar bear dens, are monitored by the FWS. 
However, these sites are only a small percentage of the total active 
polar bear dens for the SBS stock in any given year. Each year LOA and 
incidental harassment authorization (IHA) holders coordinate with the 
FWS to conduct surveys to attempt to determine the location of known or 
suspected polar bear dens and denning habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of 
human activity. Per typical LOA requirements, if a known or suspected 
den site is located, LOA holders immediately consult with the FWS to 
determine if additional surveys or mitigation measures are required. 
The exact prescription of mitigation measures may vary based on the 
specifics of an individual den site but in the past, after locating a 
known or suspected den site, FWS has worked with operators to implement 
various mitigation measures such as activity exclusion zones and 24-
hour monitoring of the den site. In their Request, AOGA has committed 
to ``maintain a minimum avoidance distance of 805 m from all polar 
bears at a den site when operating vehicles, vessels, and aircraft, 
except in the event of an emergency or a den-specific plan when safe 
and practicable to do so.'' The responses of denning polar bears to 
disturbance and the consequences of these responses can vary throughout 
the denning process, which entails four stages: den establishment, 
early denning, late denning, and post-emergence; definitions and 
descriptions are provided by Woodruff et al. (2022a) and are also 
located in the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITRs (86 FR 42982, August 5, 
2021; revised 90 FR 27398, June 26, 2025). The probability that denning 
polar bears will be disturbed by nearby Industry activities and the 
polar bears' resulting responses to disturbance (den abandonment, early 
emergence from the den, or early departure from the den site) varies by 
denning stage (A summary of this information is available in 
supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. 
FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694).

Impacts of Surface Activities on Walruses

    Walruses do not frequently inhabit the Beaufort Sea. The likelihood 
of encountering walruses during Industry operations is low and limited 
to the open-water season. During the ITR period, Industry operations 
may occasionally encounter small groups of walruses swimming in open 
water or hauled out onto ice floes or along the coast. Industry 
monitoring data have reported 49 walruses between 1995 and 2023, with 
only a few instances of disturbance to those walruses (AES Alaska 2015; 
FWS unpublished data). If walruses are encountered during the specified 
activities, the interaction could potentially result in disturbance.
    Anecdotal observations by walrus hunters and researchers suggest 
that males tend to be more tolerant of disturbances than females, and 
individuals tend to be more tolerant than groups. Females with 
dependent calves are considered least tolerant of disturbances. In the 
Chukchi Sea, disturbance events are known to cause walrus groups to 
abandon land or ice haulouts and occasionally result in trampling 
injuries or cow-calf separations, both of which are potentially fatal. 
Calves and young animals at terrestrial haulouts are particularly 
vulnerable to trampling injuries. However, due to the lack of previous 
walrus haulouts in the ITR region, the most likely potential impacts of 
the specified activities include displacement from preferred foraging 
areas, increased stress, energy expenditure, interference with feeding, 
and masking of communications. Any impact of human presence on walruses 
is likely to be limited to a few individuals due to their geographic 
range and seasonal distribution.
    The reaction of walruses to vessel traffic is dependent upon vessel 
type, distance, speed, and previous exposure to disturbances. Walruses 
in the water appear to be less readily disturbed by vessels than 
walruses hauled out on land or ice. Furthermore, barges and vessels 
associated with Industry activities travel in open water and avoid 
large ice floes or land where walruses are likely to be found. In 
addition, walruses can use a vessel as a haulout platform. In 2009, 
during Industry activities in the Chukchi Sea, an adult walrus was 
observed hauled out on the stern of a vessel.

Effects of Aircraft Activities on Walruses

    Aircraft overflights may disturb walruses. Reactions to aircraft 
vary with range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as well as walrus 
age, sex, and group size. Adult females, calves, and immature walruses 
tend to be more sensitive to aircraft disturbance. Walruses are 
particularly sensitive to changes in engine noise and are more likely 
to stampede when aircraft turn or fly low overhead. Researchers 
conducting aerial surveys for walruses in sea ice habitats have 
observed little reaction to fixed-winged aircraft above 457 m (1,500 
ft) (FWS unpublished data). Although the intensity of the reaction to 
noise is variable, walruses are probably most susceptible to 
disturbance by fast-moving and low-flying aircraft (100 m (328 ft) 
above ground level) or aircraft that change or alter speed or 
direction. In the Chukchi Sea, there are recent examples of walruses 
being disturbed by aircraft flying in the vicinity of haulouts. It 
appears that walruses are more sensitive to disturbance when hauled out 
on land versus sea ice.

Effects of In-Water Activities on Walruses

    Walruses hear sounds both in air and in water. They have been shown 
to hear from 60 Hz to 23 kHz in air (Reichmuth et al. 2020). Tests of 
underwater hearing have shown their range to be between 1 kHz and 12 
kHz with greatest sensitivity at 12 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2002). The 
underwater hearing abilities of the walrus have not been studied 
sufficiently to develop species-specific criteria for preventing 
harmful exposure. However, sound level thresholds have been developed 
for members of the ``other marine carnivore'' group of marine mammals. 
For a discussion of these thresholds information is available in 
supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. 
FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694. As we discussed in Effects of In-Water Activities 
on Polar Bears, the majority of the sound-producing instruments that 
will be used during the specified activities will not produce in-water 
sound above the threshold designated for Level B harassment or they do 
not produce sound within the hearing range of walruses.
    If walruses are present within an ensonified area that reaches 
Level B harassment thresholds, noise may prevent ordinary communication 
between individuals and prevent them

[[Page 66214]]

from locating one another. The noise may also prevent walruses from 
using potential habitats in the Beaufort Sea and may have the potential 
to alter the frequency or duration of behaviors such as feeding, 
foraging, or nursing. The most likely response of walruses to acoustic 
disturbances in open water would be for animals to move away from the 
source of the disturbance. Displacement from a preferred feeding area 
may reduce foraging success, increase stress levels, and increase 
energy expenditures.

Impacts of the Specified Activities on Polar Bear and Walrus Prey 
Species

    Information on the potential impacts of the specified activities on 
polar bear and walrus prey species can be found in the SUPPLEMENTAL 
INFORMATION. Based on this information, the FWS does not anticipate any 
substantial impacts on prey availability to polar bears or walruses as 
a result of AOGA's specified activities.

Potential Impacts of Oil Spills on Polar Bears and Walruses

    The FWS reviewed the potential impacts of oil spills on the SBS 
stock of polar bears and walruses, as well as records of oil spills in 
the specified geographic region and evaluated oil spill response 
methods in the specified geographic region. Information from this 
review can be found in SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694. Based on this 
review, the likelihood of a large oil spill in the next 5 years is low. 
In the unlikely event of a large spill, the likelihood that spills 
would contaminate areas occupied by large numbers of polar bears or 
walruses is low. While individual polar bears could be negatively 
affected by a spill, the potential for a stock-level effect is low 
unless the spill contacted an area where large numbers of polar bears 
were gathered. Known polar bear aggregations tend to be seasonal during 
the fall, further minimizing the potential of a spill to impact the 
stock. Onshore oil spills would not impact walruses unless they 
occurred on or near beaches or oil moved into the offshore environment. 
In the event of a spill that occurs during the open-water season, oil 
could be released into the water column, or it could drift from onshore 
water sources to offshore areas, possibly encountering a small number 
of walruses. However, as was stated earlier, the Beaufort Sea is not 
within the primary range for walruses. Therefore, the probability of 
walruses encountering oil or waste products as a result of a spill from 
Industry activities is low. Therefore, we conclude that the likelihood 
of a large spill occurring is low, but if a large spill does occur, the 
likelihood that it would contaminate areas occupied by large numbers of 
polar bears or walruses is also low. If a large spill does occur, we 
conclude that only small numbers of polar bears or walruses are likely 
to be affected, though some animals may be killed, and there would be 
only a negligible impact on the SBS polar bear stock or walrus 
population.

Take Estimates

Incidental Take Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

    Below we discuss three types of MMPA take and how such takes could 
occur in the polar bear and walrus contexts. This discussion is 
provided for context and background and does not necessarily reflect 
what is anticipated to result from the specified activities.

Lethal Take

    Human activity may result in biologically significant impacts on 
polar bears and walruses. In the most serious interactions with polar 
bears (e.g., vehicle collision, running over an unknown den causing its 
collapse), human actions can result in the mortality of polar bears. We 
also note that, while not considered incidental, in situations where 
there is an imminent threat to human life, polar bears may be killed. 
Additionally, though not considered incidental, polar bears have been 
accidentally killed during efforts to deter polar bears from a work 
area for safety and from direct chemical exposure (81 FR 52276, August 
5, 2016). If unintentional disturbance of a female polar bear by human 
activity during the denning season caused the female to abandon her 
cubs in the den before the cubs can survive on their own, incidental 
lethal take of polar bear cubs would occur. Incidental lethal take of 
walruses could occur if a walrus were directly struck by a vessel or 
trampled by other walruses in a human-caused stampede at a walrus 
haulout site.

Level A Harassment

    Human activity may result in the injury of polar bears or walruses. 
Level A harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is defined as 
``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which ... has the potential 
to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild'' (16 
U.S.C. 1362(18)).
    Numerous actions can cause take by Level A harassment of polar bear 
cubs during the denning period, such as creating a disturbance that 
separates mothers from dependent cubs (Amstrup 2003), inducing early 
den emergence during the late denning period (Amstrup and Gardner 1994; 
Rode et al. 2018), instigating early departure from the den site during 
the post-emergence period (Andersen et al. 2024), or repeatedly 
interrupting the nursing or resting of cubs to the extent that it 
impacts the cubs' body condition. As with lethal take, walruses are 
most vulnerable to Level A harassment when congregated in haulouts. The 
risk of stampede-related injuries increases with the number of walruses 
hauled out and with the duration spent on coastal haulouts. Calves and 
young walruses are the most vulnerable to suffer injuries and/or 
mortality (88 FR 53510, August 8, 2023).

Level B Harassment

    Level B harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is 
defined as ``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which... has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, feeding, or sheltering'' (16 
U.S.C. 1362(18)). Changes in behavior that disrupt certain behaviors or 
activities for the affected animal are indicative of take by Level B 
harassment under the MMPA. Such reactions include, but are not limited 
to, the following:
    <bullet> Fleeing (running or swimming away from a human or a human 
activity);
    <bullet> Displaying a stress-related behavior such as jaw or lip-
popping, front leg stomping, vocalizations, circling, intense staring, 
or salivating for polar bears;
    <bullet> Abandoning or avoiding preferred movement corridors such 
as ice floes, leads, polynyas, a segment of coastline, barrier islands, 
or other resting sites;
    <bullet> Abandoning prey or feeding areas;
    <bullet> Using a longer or more difficult route of travel instead 
of the intended path;
    <bullet> Interrupting breeding, sheltering, or feeding;
    <bullet> Moving away at a fast pace (adult) and polar bear cubs or 
walrus calves struggling to keep up;
    <bullet> Temporary, short-term cessation of nursing or resting 
(cubs or calves);
    <bullet> Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a prolonged period 
(adults); or
    <bullet> Loss of hunting opportunity due to disturbance of prey.
    This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other 
behavioral responses may be indicative of take by Level B harassment. 
Relatively minor changes in behavior such as the animal

[[Page 66215]]

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.

Estimating Take

    To evaluate incidental take of polar bears from the specified 
activities and inform our MMPA-required findings, we start by 
considering the estimates of likely incidental take and the analysis of 
associated impacts provided by the Request. We then identify some 
inherent uncertainties associated with forecasting impacts in this 
context, discuss legislative intent concerning how such uncertainties 
are to be considered in the ITR process, and effectuate that intent via 
further analysis that considers predictive model results. We then make 
findings that account for qualitative and quantitative considerations 
and data, the Request's estimates of likely incidental take, and FWS 
predictive model results. In light of the inherent uncertainties and 
challenges with quantifying take and the disparate results produced 
through different methodologies, the FWS considers its predictive model 
estimates alongside the requester's predictive estimates, which it 
derived from a distinct methodology (as described below in The 
Request's Take Estimation Methods), and various qualitative and 
quantitative factors. The FWS predictive model results for incidental 
take of polar bears were not a component of determining the MMPA-
required findings in the Beaufort Sea ITRs issued between 1993 and 2016 
because the model did not exist. As a part of a change introduced 
around that time for MMPA-required findings, the first Beaufort Sea 
ITRs using the FWS predictive model was the most recent 2021-2026 
Beaufort Sea ITRs. The FWS is now further refining its approach to 
evaluate MMPA-required findings with additional information, including 
recent research, on-the-ground data, and the estimates provided by 
AOGA. The FWS also recognizes that this approach to rendering MMPA-
required findings differs from the approaches used in ITRs and IHAs 
concerning polar bears since 2021, in which we relied on qualitative 
and qualitative considerations and predictive model results but not a 
separate set of incidental take estimates provided by the Requester. 
The reason for this change relates to the fact that the present 
Request, in providing the estimates and analysis required by 50 CFR 
18.27(d), uses methodologies and assumptions that differ from those 
employed by FWS's predictive modeling, resulting in different 
quantitative estimates. In this context, considering the additional 
types of analysis provided by the Request, while continuing to consider 
qualitative and quantitative considerations and data, and the FWS 
predictive modeling results, facilitates a more comprehensive analysis 
to inform FWS's MMPA-required findings. The approach here also 
preserves the utility of the regulatory requirement that requests for 
ITRs provide estimates of likely incidental take. This approach is 
robust, well-tailored to the present circumstances, and permissible 
under 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A), which does not require quantification at 
all, let alone prescribe any particular methodology for rendering 
required findings.

Request's Critique of FWS's Methodology for Estimating Take

    Appendix A of the Request provides a ``Critique of USFWS's 
Methodology for Estimating Take and Rationale for AOGA's Evidence-Based 
Approach.'' In summary, the Request notes that the requester developed 
its methodology ``because the Service's approach--based solely on 
numerical modeling--has proven to be flawed and legally insufficient in 
multiple ways.'' Appendix A provides four ``primary flaws with the 
Service's approach . . . .''

The Request's Take Estimation Methods

    The Request summarized its incidental take methodology as follows:

    To estimate incidental take of polar bears and walruses that may 
occur during the activities described in this petition, AOGA used a 
weight of evidence (WOE) approach consistent with the guidelines 
published by the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] in 2016 (EPA 
2016) and Executive Order 14303 (The White House 2025), which states 
that ``[w]hen scientific or technological information is used to 
inform agency evaluations and subsequent decision-making, employees 
shall apply a weight of scientific evidence approach.'' The WOE 
framework offers a structured approach to combine multiple sources 
of evidence and draws on field-verified data to support estimates of 
incidental harassment of polar bears and Pacific walruses that may 
occur during the class of oil and gas activities described in [the 
Petition]. (Request, p. 3-1).

    The Request lists ``[t]he lines of evidence used to estimate 
incidental Level B takes by harassment of polar bears and Pacific 
walruses during the class of oil and gas activities described in [the 
Petition] and ``also used to evaluate and assess the likely anticipated 
impacts on marine mammals . . . .'' The Request's lines of evidence are 
(Request, pp. 3-2, 3):
    <bullet> 2,646 records of 2,830 polar bear sightings within the 
petition area reported by the oil and gas industry (2014-2024);
    <bullet> Incidental Level B takes by harassment reported during oil 
and gas activities within the petition area (2014-2024);
    <bullet> Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) program 
data for the period (2013-2019);
    <bullet> Denning bear case studies (1974-2024) (appendix C.3);
    <bullet> Documented polar bear dens detected within the petition 
area using AIR (2013-2024);
    <bullet> Documented polar bear dens detected within the petition 
area by personnel on the ground (2006-2024);
    <bullet> Documented bear responses when mitigation measures were 
applied by Industry (i.e., avoidance and minimization measures applied 
for dens located near Industry; section 3.7);
    <bullet> The type, nature, and extent of monitoring protocols 
carried out by Industry to observe polar bears and dens in the vicinity 
of oil and gas activities;
    <bullet> Literature review--over 620 data sources (i.e., scientific 
literature, monitoring reports, field data, etc.) were reviewed and 
over 240 sources are cited in this petition;
    <bullet> LOA monitoring reports of Pacific walrus sightings (2023-
2024);
    <bullet> Sensitivity Analyses of the USFWS Surface Bear Model 
(USFWS 2021b) and USFWS Denning Bear Model (USFWS 2025a) (appendix C); 
and
    <bullet> Comparison of USFWS Denning and Surface Model results 
using USFWS parameters and AOGA Parameters (USFWS 2021b) (USFWS 2025a) 
(appendix C).
    The Request further notes that:

    To estimate take of polar bears and Pacific walruses, the 
weighted body of evidence listed in table 3-1 was evaluated in terms 
of quantity (i.e., more lines of evidence enhances reliability), 
coherence (i.e., logical alignment among different types of evidence 
improves reliability), lack of bias (i.e., evidence is more reliable 
when consistent results are observed across studies or time 
periods), and comprehensiveness (i.e., evidence that covers a broad 
spectrum of relevant information).
    Among the lines of evidence, direct field observations (such as 
the LOA database (in the Request at appendix C.2), historical bear 
denning case studies, and walrus sightings) and scientific 
literature received the highest weighted scores for overall 
relevance, strength, and reliability.
    Higher-weighted evidence is given proportionally more influence 
in estimating

[[Page 66216]]

take in this petition. This does not mean weaker evidence is 
ignored, but rather that take estimates are guided more by the 
strongest, most reliable, and most relevant data. AOGA considered 
all the evidence and determined that the best evidence on which to 
base a take estimate is the highest 5 years of takes over the last 
ten years.
    The LOA database (appendix C.2) is the most extensive empirical 
dataset collected regarding industry polar bear monitoring in the 
world and is well-suited to inform this petition as the data were 
collected during the same classes of activities, in the same 
environment and for the same animal populations for which this 
petition is submitted as described in section 1.2. These data, along 
with evidence from peer reviewed literature are the best evidence 
from which to assess potential incidental harassment of polar bears 
on the surface (i.e., non-denning polar bears). In addition, a total 
of 64 denning bear case studies, of which 23 are representative of 
industry activities, were reviewed to assess potential incidental 
harassment of denning bears for this petition. These written 
accounts of human discovered dens describe the class of nearby human 
activities (if any), den location and phenology (i.e., timing), and 
observed polar bear behaviors, as well as records of dens documented 
by extensive industry surveys and on-the-ground field operations 
within the petition area provide the basis for the assessment of 
potential disturbance to dens during industry activities. Historical 
data on denning bears dating back to 1974 were used to develop 
proportional outcomes of potential harassment (rates) and 
correlative distances for denning bears exposed to human activities, 
and demonstrate patterns of preferential denning regions in the 
petition area. Direct field evidence gathered each year using AIR 
surveys and personnel on the ground offers the most accurate 
information on potential dens in the petition area. Real data on 
probable den locations are mapped and distributed to operations 
every denning season so that dens may be avoided by industry.
    The USFWS models for surface and denning bears were considered 
as relevant evidence, but they received less weight than other 
evidence such as field observations because sensitivity analyses 
show the models have weaknesses with respect to reliability and 
strength.
    To estimate the incidental take of Pacific walruses, walrus 
sighting data reported by vessel-based and aerial surveys (Clarke et 
al. 2017a, 2018a, 2019, Clarke et al. 2015, Clarke et al. 2017b, 
Ireland et al. 2016), as well as recent industry observation data 
were the basis for assessing potential interaction with Pacific 
walruses during oil and gas industry activities. Notably, the 
sighting data used in this petition are records of the presence of 
walruses, not take by incidental harassment. Industry monitoring 
reports (LOA 24-INC-07, LOA 24-INC-08, and LOA 24-INC-09) reported 
either no takes of Pacific walruses by incidental harassment or it 
was unknown whether take occurred. For this reason, this petition 
uses the Pacific walrus sighting data from these collective sources 
to estimate Level B take by incidental harassment. These data 
sources summarize real-world observations, providing direct evidence 
of interactions between oil and gas activities and polar bears and 
Pacific walruses, and the result of those exposures. Assessments 
grounded in these lines of evidence offer the most accurate 
reflection of what occurs during the oil and gas activities outlined 
in this petition, instead of relying exclusively on assumptions and 
modeling. The evidentiary value of this approach, supported by the 
scientific literature cited throughout this petition, clearly 
presents patterns of species' presence and interaction with oil and 
gas operations within the petition area to pragmatically evaluate 
future interactions. These real-world datasets from which this 
petition tiers, represent documented proof of complex animal 
behaviors at the interface with industry activity. (Request, p. 3-
10-11).

    The Request details a number of reasons for having a high level of 
confidence in operators' ability to detect polar bears near Industry 
activities, including ``scientific methods used to detect surface bears 
and bear dens,'' required and effective ``[t]raining specific to polar 
bear identification, reporting and mitigation,'' and ``emphasis on 
vigilance and reporting'' based on polar bears being a ``threat to 
human safety.'' (Request, p. 3-53; see also Request, p. 3-54 stating 
``[w]hile it is theoretically possible that a bear or bear den in 
proximity to Industry could go undetected, it is highly unlikely given 
the necessary vigilance and extensive and continuous monitoring that 
occurs during oil and gas activities.''). The effectiveness of 
mitigation measures is also addressed (see, e.g., Request, section 
3.7). Provided below is a summary of the Request's estimates of 
incidental take concerning surface (i.e., non-denning) polar bears and 
denning polar bears.

AOGA Estimates: Surface Polar Bears During All Activities

    In estimating the likely incidental take of surface polar bears, 
the Request states that ``the most recent 10-year period of 
observational data. . . provides the most reliable estimation of future 
incidental take of surface bears resulting from the [specified 
activities]'' because ``[t]he 2014-2024 period of observational data 
best reflects recent patterns in polar bear distribution and habitat 
use in the [Request] area, as well as industry activity, monitoring 
methods, and reporting practices that are consistent with today's 
regulatory and operational environment'' (Request, p. 3-42). The 
Request states that the average number of incidental Level B 
harassments observed ``for the recent 10-year period (2014-2024) was 
16, with a standard deviation of (SD) of 9.95 and an annual range of 4-
35'' (Request, p. 3-42). Also noted is ``a trend of increased presence 
of polar bears in coastal areas and their duration on land, 
particularly during the ice-free season.'' For the purposes of 
estimating incidental Level B harassment of surface polar bears from 
the specified activities, the Request ``assumes these trends will 
continue and therefore uses the five highest incidental take years from 
the most recent 10-year period of observational data as the most 
reasonable representation of incidental take levels of non-denning 
bears for the 2026-2031 period'' (Request, p. 3-42). This approach 
resulted in an estimated ``annual average of 24'' incidental Level B 
harassments of surface polar bears, ``with a SD of 7.62 and an annual 
range of 15-35'' (Request, p. 3-42). The number was derived using a 
dataset that includes Level B harassment events that occurred during 
vessel-based and aircraft-based activities, therefore the FWS has 
assumed AOGA intends the estimate to encompass these activities as 
well. The Request does not anticipate any forms of incidental take of 
surface polar bears other than Level B harassment.

AOGA Estimates: Denning Polar Bears

    The Request states that ``[b]ased on the data from the five highest 
years of dens detected near industry during the last decade (Request, 
table 3-16), an estimate of 1.8 dens/year may be present near industry 
activities'' (Request, p. 3-52). AOGA conducted a denning case study 
review that evaluated 64 case studies, 23 of which they found to be 
relevant to Industry, to ``infer the disposition of denning bears 
exposed to industry activity'' (Request, p. 3-47). They provide a full 
description of their methodology in section 3.5 and appendix C of their 
Request. The results of AOGA's denning case study review are then 
summarized as follows: ``87 percent of dens resulted in no effect, 11 
percent resulted in the Level B incidental harassment and 2 percent 
resulted in Level A harassment'' (Request, p. 3-53). Applying these 
probabilities in light of the estimated number of dens near Industry 
activities, and assuming three polar bears per den (a sow and two 
cubs), the Request estimates that ``23 denning bears would experience 
no effect, 3 denning bears would experience Level B incidental 
harassment, and the probability of Level A harassment is exceedingly 
low (less than one over the 5-year period)'' (Request, p. 3-53).

AOGA Estimates: Total Take

    In sum, with respect to likely incidental take over the 2026-2031

[[Page 66217]]

period, the Request estimates the Level B harassment of 123 polar bears 
(120 surface polar bears and 3 denning polar bears) and no other forms 
of take. This consists of an annual average of 24 incidental Level B 
harassments of surface polar bears, which includes vessel-based and 
aircraft-based activities and an additional 3 Level B harassments of 
denning polar bears across the 5 years. AOGA estimates less than one 
Level A harassment over the 5-year period and does not anticipate any 
lethal take.

Consideration of Model Results

    The Request also discusses the methods used by the FWS to estimate 
impacts to polar bears in recent regulatory processes (Request, section 
3.3 and appendix A). This discussion asserts various flaws in FWS's 
modeling approach and characterizes FWS model outputs as substantially 
overestimating impacts. For comparative purposes, the Request reports 
two sets of results from AOGA-conducted runs of FWS's surface and 
denning models: one set described as using FWS parameters, and one set 
using parameters developed by AOGA (Request, p. 3-13, tables 3-6 and 3-
7). Each set of results is further compared to AOGA's accounting of 
reported take reflected in their LOA database (Request, p. 3-16).

Uncertainties

    Disparities in projections of future impacts can result not only 
from different interpretations of existing data, but also from use of 
different assumptions and methods to account for uncertainties. In the 
present context, several inherent uncertainties increase the difficulty 
of accurately estimating the future impacts of the specified activities 
on polar bears. Most notably, based on general observational data and 
reports along with various scientific studies:
    <bullet> There is variability in how polar bears use the ITR region 
each year and in how individual polar bears respond (if at all) to 
Industry activities. This is demonstrated by the 43 Level B takes 
observed and reported by two operators in the ITR region for calendar 
year 2025, which is more than a standard deviation above the average 
annual numbers of the Level B harassment requested.
    <bullet> The detailed observation reports submitted by operators 
pursuant to MMPA take authorization requirements provide valuable data 
concerning, among other things, polar bear distribution in the ITR 
region and how polar bears react (if at all) to industrial stimuli. 
However, ambient conditions common to the ITR region (e.g., darkness, 
snow, fog, and wind) can reduce the ability to observe all polar bears 
(and impacts, if any) in the vicinity of Industry activities.
    <bullet> During the denning timeframe, when a sow's abandonment of 
her maternal den prior to her cub(s) developing sufficient strength 
and/or ability to thermoregulate would be presumed to result in 
mortality of the cub(s), denning sows are thought to exhibit a 
relatively higher tolerance to disturbance. The existing dataset 
contains no definitive evidence that an Industry activity caused a 
maternal den abandonment that resulted in cub mortality. That said, 
given environmental conditions, the existence of scavengers, and 
difficulty of observation, it remains possible that this scenario has 
occurred but was not fully observed. It is also possible that if 
maternal den abandonment occurred, it was from factors outside Industry 
activity or that there were no cubs when a den was abandoned. Scenarios 
outside Industry activity should not be considered take by Industry.
    <bullet> Several scientific studies have found a correlation 
between premature maternal den emergence and/or premature maternal den 
site departure and cub survival, suggesting these behavioral responses 
may result in a decline in cub fitness and associated reduction in cub 
survival probability. Observations indicating that denning polar bears 
prematurely emerged from their den and/or prematurely departed from 
their den site in response to Industry disturbance are rare. Assessment 
of this potential behavioral response is complicated by natural 
variability in the times that undisturbed polar bears establish their 
dens, remain in their dens, and remain at their den sites post-
emergence. Any disturbance-caused decline in cub fitness would be 
difficult to observe, and any associated cub mortality would likely 
manifest after the family unit has departed from the observable area 
and onto the sea ice.
    <bullet> The exact numbers and precise locations of maternal polar 
bear dens that will be established in the ITR region during each winter 
of the 2026-2031 period is unknown. The exact percentage of those dens 
that will be successfully detected and avoided by operators is also 
unknown. Therefore, a proportion of known/avoided to unknown/not 
avoided cannot be calculated.

Legislative Intent

    The FWS addressed how to consider uncertainties regarding the 
probability and extent of potential impacts in the ITR context when it 
developed its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 18.27. Responding to a 
variety of public comments in its 1989 final rule (54 FR 40338, 
September 29, 1989), the FWS confirmed that the approach described in 
its proposed rule accurately interpreted the legislative intent behind 
the 1986 Amendments to the MMPA:

    ``If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural 
or speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A 
finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the 
probability of occurrence is low but the potential effects may be 
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts 
must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species 
or stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this 
balancing test, the Service will thoroughly evaluate the risks 
involved and the potential impacts on marine mammal populations. 
Such determinations will be made based on the best available 
scientific information.'' (54 FR 40338 at 40343, September 29, 1989, 
citing 53 FR 8473 at 8474, March 15, 1988; accord, 132 Cong. Rec. 
S16305 (Oct. 15, 1986)).

    The 1989 final rule continues:

    ``The Service recognizes the tension that exists between 
development interests and wildlife resource interests when 
restrictions on development are predicated upon the existence of 
adverse impacts that are speculative in nature. To resolve these 
difficult situations, the legislative history of the 1986 Amendments 
endorsed the use of a balancing approach to weigh the likelihood of 
occurrence against the severity of the potential impact: The degree 
of certainty of occurrence required in these judgments should be 
inversely proportional to the resultant harm to the overall 
population. 132 Cong. Rec. S16305 (Oct. 15, 1986). In applying this 
balancing test, the Service must, of necessity, evaluate each 
request for specific regulations on a case-by-case basis'' (54 FR 
40338 at 40343, September 29, 1989).

    In the present context, where there exists substantial uncertainty 
as to the potential impacts of the specified activities, and where high 
rates of human-caused cub mortality (which has not been observed in the 
ITR region) could represent a significant effect to the SBS stock of 
polar bears, the FWS considered the results of its predictive modeling 
and AOGA's take estimates and other qualitative factors to further 
inform its balancing. While the legislative history on this point 
concerns ``negligible impact'' analyses, the FWS will utilize a 
similar, comprehensive approach for all MMPA-required findings.

The FWS's Predictive Model Results

    The FWS conducts predictive modeling that entails four main 
components: processes for estimating incidental take of non-denning 
polar bears during surface activities, aircraft

[[Page 66218]]

activities, and vessel activities, and a process for estimating 
incidental take of denning polar bears during all operations. A 
detailed description of these processes, along with the model code and 
most recent data inputs, is provided at FWS-R7-ES-2025-1628 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. The FWS's predictive model results provide, among 
other things, a basis for assessing the probability and severity of 
potential impacts that the scientific literature suggests are possible 
but have not been observed or are rarely observed in the ITR region.
    The FWS recognizes that all predictive analyses and models have 
limitations. The FWS further recognizes that its predictive models 
contribute to take estimates that have exceeded (and are expected to 
exceed) the number of events where biological consequences indicative 
of take are observed to result from Industry activities. This is partly 
because the predictive models are one way to estimate harassment 
consistent with the MMPA's harassment definitions, which encompass 
certain acts which have ``the potential to'' result in certain 
biological consequences, and to account for any unobserved take. When 
addressing uncertainties, the models incorporate assumptions that 
attempt to strike a balance between potential overestimates and 
potential underestimates, but, overall, are more likely to contribute 
to an overestimate, rather than an underestimate, of the incidental 
take of polar bears. Because of these limitations and the likely 
overestimates of incidental take by its predictive models, this ITR 
considers a range of qualitative factors, AOGA's take estimates, and 
its predictive models altogether as the ``best available scientific 
evidence'' to support its determinations. FWS acknowledges its 
awareness this rule represents a shift in approach from that taken in 
the 2021-2026 ITR and the proposed ITR regarding what constitutes the 
``best available scientific evidence.'' For the reasons discussed here 
and throughout the preamble, the FWS concludes that the approach to the 
``best available scientific evidence'' in this rule: (1) is permissible 
under the MMPA; (2) is a better approach than that reflected in the 
2021-2026 ITR and the proposed ITR; and (3) is supported by good 
reasons.
    Over the years, the FWS has continually incorporated new data as it 
becomes available and refined its modeling parameters to improve 
accuracy to the extent practicable. However, FWS recognizes that solely 
considering its predictive modelling estimates would not amount to 
considering the ``best available scientific evidence'' required to make 
its determinations.
    Each refinement of modeling parameters has been described in the 
first ITRs or IHA review process in which they were employed (e.g., 90 
FR 27398, June 26, 2025; and 90 FR 2718, January 13, 2025). More recent 
refinements, in addition to incorporating the latest available data, 
introduced in the present analysis are as follows:
    <bullet> Assessment of the rate of incidental take preceding 
intentional take: In past incidental take analyses, we explained that 
intentional take events are usually preceded by incidental Level B 
harassment, and that since sufficient data were not available to 
support application of a reliable correction factor, we included all 
intentional take events in our calculations of incidental take rates as 
a proxy for estimating incidental take in this context. We identified 
this assumption as ``conservative'' in the rulemaking process for the 
2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITRs (86 FR 42982 at 43049, August 5, 2021). To 
increase accuracy in future analyses, we used a structured review 
process with designated decision rules to revisit records of 
intentional take from 2014-2024 to determine whether incidental Level B 
harassment occurred or potentially occurred prior to the intentional 
Level B harassment. We found 29 percent of intentional encounters were 
not preceded by incidental harassment and we apply this correction 
factor in the present analysis.
    <bullet> Estimation of polar bear re-sighting rate: In past 
incidental take analyses, we estimated numbers of incidental take of 
polar bears but lacked sufficient data to further estimate how many 
individual polar bears would be subjected to those takes. We then 
provided ``small numbers'' determinations that identified and applied a 
conservative assumption that each estimated take would accrue to a 
different individual polar bear (e.g., 82 FR 42982 at 43039, August 5, 
2021). We describe below in our efforts to refine this assumption.
    <bullet> Development of Offshore Polar Bear Encounter Rate: In past 
incidental take analyses, the FWS has used the coastal polar bear 
encounter rate to estimate take from offshore activities, while 
acknowledging the rate was conservative and greater than the actual 
rate of offshore encounters. At the recommendation of AOGA, we explored 
the use of data from the National Marine Fisheries Service Aerial 
Survey of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM). We subset the ASAMM dataset to 
account for decreased visibility due to sea state and observation 
limitations. A summary of this information is available in supplemental 
information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-
2026-0694. The effort enabled FWS to develop an offshore polar bear 
encounter rate that enables more accurate estimates of take from vessel 
activity beyond the barrier islands.

FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Surface Activities

    The FWS analyzed take by Level B harassment for polar bears that 
may be encountered and potentially impacted during AOGA's specified 
activities within the specified geographic region using the predictive 
formula presented in the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITRs (hereafter 2021-
2026 ITRs; 86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021). The formula incorporates 
spatio-temporally specific encounter rates and temporally specific 
harassment rates. We updated the encounter and harassment rates using 
polar bear encounter records submitted since the promulgation of the 
2021-2026 ITRs. A detailed description of this process, which included 
reassessment of the dates for open-water and ice seasons, evaluation of 
the rate of incidental take preceding intentional take, and 
establishment of a polar bear re-sighting rate as described above can 
be found in supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in 
Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694. During FWS's preliminary review of 
their Request, AOGA provided the FWS with digital geospatial files that 
included the expected human occupancy for each individual structure 
(e.g., each road, pipeline, well pad) of their proposed activities for 
each month of the ITR period.

FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Aircraft Activities

    Polar bears in the ITR region will likely be exposed to the visual 
and auditory stimulation associated with the applicant's fixed-wing and 
helicopter activities; however, these impacts are anticipated to be 
minimal and short-term. Low-flying aircraft activities may cause 
disruptions in the normal behavioral patterns of polar bears as either 
an auditory or visual stimulus, thereby resulting in incidental Level B 
harassment. To reduce the likelihood that polar bears are disturbed by 
aircraft, AOGA has included a variety of mitigation measures, such as 
minimum flight altitudes over polar bears and restrictions on hovering 
over polar bears. Meanwhile, the Request also states that certain 
aviation activities must be flown at low altitudes by

[[Page 66219]]

design, including airborne gravity and airborne magnetic data 
collection, environmental (e.g., avian, mammal, and ice) surveys, 
cultural and archeological resource surveys, and summer cleanup 
operations. We estimated the number of polar bears expected to be 
harassed by these low-flying aircraft activities using an estimate of 
the number of flight hours in each season and polar bear density zone 
(i.e., coastal vs. inland zone). These estimates were used as inputs in 
the take calculation formula presented in the revised 2021-2026 ITRs 
(90 FR 27398, June 26, 2025). Disturbances from aircraft activity are 
expected to have no more than short-term, temporary, and minor impacts 
on individual polar bears.

FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Denning Polar Bears

    We used the analytical methods presented in previous take 
authorizations (e.g., 90 FR 27398, June 26, 2025) to estimate the 
effects of the specified activities on denning polar bears. The 
statistical model consists of 10,000 iterations of simulated dens that 
are exposed to the specified activities and potentially disturbed. We 
estimated 6.5 (median=6; 95 percent posterior credible interval (CI): 
1-14) land-based dens in the area of specified activity in AOGA's 
Request and within a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer of the activities, annually. 
Estimates for different levels of take are presented in supplemental 
information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-
2026-0694. The distributions of simulated Level A harassments as well 
as lethal takes due to den abandonment were non-normal and heavily 
skewed, as indicated by markedly different mean and median values. The 
heavily skewed nature of these distributions has led to a mean value 
that is not representative of the most common model result.
    Due to the low probability of one or more lethal takes occurring 
either annually (0.12) or in 5-year aggregate (0.43), along with a 
median value of 0 for either time period, we do not anticipate the 
specified activities will result in lethal take of polar bears. These 
estimates do not account for certain mitigation measures that were 
incorporated into AOGA's Request but have benefits that cannot be 
quantified in the FWS's modeling approach (e.g., personnel training). 
Implementation of these mitigation measures could further reduce the 
probability of take and minimize impacts on denning polar bears.

FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Vessel Activities

    We used a method similar to that described in FWS Predictive Model 
Estimates: Aircraft Activities to estimate the potential effects of 
maritime activities on polar bears. As we discussed in Effects of In-
Water Activities on Polar Bears, we do not anticipate harassment of 
polar bears due to in-water noise production. However, vessels may 
encounter polar bears in the open water or on ice floes, and polar 
bears may be harassed by vessel activity. We used the formula that 
incorporates spatio-temporally specific encounter rates and temporally 
specific harassment rates described in FWS Predictive Model Estimates: 
Surface Activities and Supplemental Information to estimate the 
potential Level B harassment associated with vessel activity. A 
detailed description of the methodology is provided in Supplemental 
Information.

Pacific Walrus: All Interactions Estimated Harassment of Walruses

    In their Request, AOGA has presented an estimate of potential 
walrus harassment that is consistent with methods presented in the past 
and at present by FWS. With the low occurrence of walruses in the 
Beaufort Sea, and given the mitigation measures incorporated into the 
Request, the only anticipated effects from the specified activities in 
the Beaufort Sea are short-term behavioral alterations of small numbers 
of walruses. Most walrus encounters within the ITR region in the past 
10 years have been of solitary walruses or groups of two walruses. A 
group of eight walruses was encountered during barging activity within 
the ITR region in 2025. The vessel encountered an additional 11 
walruses along their voyage before entering the ITR region. While 
highly unlikely that a group of walruses will be encountered during the 
proposed activities, we estimate that no more than 20 walruses annually 
will be taken by Level B harassment during the specified activities. 
Harassment of no more than 20 walruses may occur from behavioral 
responses to vessels, or from behavioral changes in response to noise 
greater than 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa created by in-water activities.

Critical Assumptions

    In order to conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount 
of Level B harassment and Level A harassment, several critical 
assumptions were made (for information regarding Critical Assumptions, 
see supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket 
No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694).

FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Sum of Harassment From All Sources

    The FWS predictive modeling methods estimated 94 takes by Level B 
harassment of 46 individual polar bears annually. This estimate from 
the models was comprised of 85 takes of 37 polar bears during surface 
interactions, 1 take of 1 polar bear during aircraft activities, 3 
takes of 3 polar bears during vessel activities, and 5 takes of 5 
denning polar bears. When these estimates from the models were 
aggregated over the 5-year period of the ITR, the modeling methods 
estimated 432 takes by Level B harassment of 209 polar bears. Of these 
takes estimated by the models, 395 takes of 172 polar bears were during 
surface interactions, 5 takes of 5 polar bears were during aircraft 
overflights, 10 takes of 10 polar bears were during vessel activities, 
and 22 takes of 22 polar bears were during denning. When aggregating 
model results over the 5-year period, the model also estimated 13 takes 
by Level A harassment of 13 denning cubs. We do not anticipate lethal 
take or Level A harassment would occur outside of impacts to denning 
polar bears because the level of sound and visual stimuli experienced 
by a polar bear on the surface would not be significant enough to 
result in injury or death. Denning polar bears, however, may be subject 
to repeated exposures, significant energy expenditure from den 
abandonment or departure, or potential impacts to a cub if the den is 
abandoned or departed prematurely.

Determinations and Findings

Small Numbers

    For our small numbers determination, we consider qualitative 
considerations, the Request's estimates of likely incidental take, and 
FWS predictive model results to determine whether the number of polar 
bears and walruses to be subjected to incidental take are respectively 
small relative to the population size of the species or stock. These 
considerations are listed below.
    1. Within the specified geographical region, the area of Industry 
activity is expected to be small relative to the ranges of polar bears 
and walruses. Specifically, the area of specified activities overlap 
with 0 percent of the walrus range and 1.9 percent of the US portion of 
the SBS polar bear range. Walruses and SBS polar bears range well 
beyond the boundaries of the ITR region. As such, the ITR region itself 
represents only a subset of the potential

[[Page 66220]]

area in which these species may occur. Thus, the FWS concludes that a 
small portion of the walrus population and SBS polar bear stock may be 
present in the specified geographic region during the time of the 
specified activities.
    2. The majority of human-polar bear interactions will result in no 
effect or short-term, temporary behavioral changes. When developing 
estimates for Level B harassment, the FWS has estimated that there is a 
99 percent chance that at least 88 percent of encounters with polar 
bears on the surface in the open-water season and 80 percent of 
encounters with polar bears on the surface in the ice season are 
expected to result in no significant change in a biologically important 
behavior, and we do not consider those interactions to result in a 
take. The remainder of polar bear encounters on the surface are 
anticipated to result in short-term, temporary changes in behavior that 
are indicative of Level B harassment of the animal.
    3. Monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation measures are 
expected to significantly limit the number of incidental takes of 
animals. Holders of an LOA will be required to adopt monitoring 
requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce potential 
impacts of their operations on walruses and polar bears. A full 
description of the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
associated with an LOA can be found in 50 CFR 18.126-18.128. The 
Service recognizes that while the benefit of these monitoring and 
adaptive mitigation measures may not be expressly accounted for in the 
numerical estimates that follow, to the extent such measures were also 
used in the past, any mitigative benefit may already be reflected in 
the LOA database that inform the quantitative estimates.
    4. The estimated number of polar bears and walruses that will be 
harassed by Industry activity is small relative to the number of 
animals in their stocks.
    In their Request, AOGA estimates Level B harassment of 24 polar 
bears on average each year, plus the estimated 3 denning bears that may 
be harassed over the entire 5 years, which, assuming all 3 denning 
bears were harassed in the same year, would be 2.9 percent of a 907-
individual SBS polar bear 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 
polar bears, largely due to a shift in the border between the SBS and 
North Beaufort Sea stock. Should this draft SAR be finalized, 27 polar 
bears constitutes 3.3 percent of the SBS polar bear stock.
    The FWS predictive model estimates that AOGA's proposed specified 
activities in the specified geographic region will involve the 
incidental take of no more than 209 polar bears during the 5-year 
period of these ITRs (see FWS Predictive Model Estimates: Sum of 
Harassment from All Sources). The highest estimated number of annual 
Level A harassment events is 3. The highest total number of polar bears 
estimated to be incidentally taken by Level A or Level B harassment 
during any year would be 49, which is 5.4 percent of the best available 
estimate of the current SBS polar bear stock size of 907 animals 
(Bromaghin et al. 2015; Atwood et al. 2020; ((49 / 907) x 100[ap]5.4 
percent)), and 6.0 percent of a 819-individual SBS polar bear stock 
((49 / 819) x 100[ap]6.0 percent)). The FWS considered both sets of 
numerical estimates in its determination that the number of polar bears 
that would be incidentally taken is small relative to the size of the 
SBS polar bear stock.
    As stated previously, walruses are extralimital in the Beaufort 
Sea, with nearly the entire walrus population found in the Chukchi and 
Bering Seas. Industry monitoring reports have observed no more than 49 
walruses between 1995 and 2023, with only a few observed instances of 
disturbance to those walruses (AES Alaska 2015; FWS unpublished data). 
Between those years, observations were typically of a single or two 
animals, often separated by several years. At most, only a tiny 
fraction of the walrus population, which is composed of hundreds of 
thousands of animals (Beatty et al. 2022), may be found in areas 
potentially affected by AOGA's specified activities. We do not 
anticipate that seasonal movements of a few walruses into the Beaufort 
Sea will significantly increase over the 5-year period of these ITRs. 
The estimated incidental take of 20 walruses per year from a population 
numbering approximately 257,193 animals represents 0.008 percent of 
that population ((20/257,193)x100[ap]0.008 percent). The FWS considered 
these numerical estimates in its determination that the number of 
walruses that would be incidentally taken is small relative to the size 
of the walrus population.

Small Numbers Conclusion

    Based on our consideration of the qualitative and quantitative 
factors considered above, we find that the specified activities will 
incidentally take only small numbers of SBS polar bears and walruses.

Negligible Impact

    We find that AOGA's specific activities would result in a 
negligible impact on the SBS stock of polar bears. For our negligible 
impact determination, we consider the following:
    1. The number of polar bears that use the terrestrial habitat of 
the North Slope is small in relation to the entire SBS polar bear 
stock. The distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears 
indicate that relatively few polar bears will occur in the specified 
areas of activity at any particular time and, therefore, few polar 
bears are likely to be affected.
    2. Mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts. Under these 
ITRs, LOA holders will be required to adopt monitoring requirements and 
mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential impacts of their 
operations on polar bears. Den detection surveys for polar bears and 
adaptive mitigation and management responses based on real-time 
monitoring information will be used to avoid or minimize interactions 
with polar bears and, therefore, limit potential disturbance of these 
animals.
    3. The monitoring data, analyses, and rulemakings dating back to 
the early 1990s, as detailed in the Request. Based on the monitoring 
and reporting conducted by the oil and gas industry under the current 
and prior ITRs, the FWS considered its substantial database of 
information regarding the scope, frequency, and anticipated effects of 
interactions that may occur incidental to oil and gas activities in and 
near the Beaufort Sea. Since the 1990s, the FWS has consistently 
concluded that the incidental take authorized under Beaufort Sea ITRs 
has no more than a ``negligible impact'' on polar bears.
    4. The estimates in the Request, based on the five highest 
incidental take years from the most recent 10-year period of 
observational data, include an annual average of 24 Level B harassments 
of 24 polar bears on the surface, plus an estimated 3 Level B 
harassments of 3 denning bears at some point during the 5-year period. 
The estimates in the Request assess the probability of Level A 
harassment as ``exceedingly low (less than one over the 5-year 
period)'' and do not estimate that any lethal take will occur during 
the 5-year period noting that ``[i]ncidental lethal take of a polar 
bear due to oil and gas activities in the petition area has never been 
documented.''
    5. The majority of human-polar bear interactions will result in no 
effect or short-term, temporary behavioral changes. When developing 
estimates for Level B harassment, the FWS has

[[Page 66221]]

determined that there is a 99 percent chance that at least 88 percent 
of encounters with polar bears on the surface in the open-water season 
and 80 percent of encounters with polar bears on the surface in the ice 
season are expected to result in no significant change in a 
biologically important behavior, and we do not consider those 
interactions to result in a take. The remainder of polar bear 
encounters on the surface are anticipated to result in short-term, 
temporary changes in behavior that are indicative of Level B harassment 
of the animal.
    6. Based on primary literature (Patil et al 2022 and the USGS den 
catalog, few dens would occur in proximity to Industry activities. 
Roughly half of SBS polar bear dens are not found on land, but rather 
on the sea ice, and would not overlap spatially with Industry 
activities. Denning simulations show that on average six dens are 
estimated to occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the specified activities 
during each of the next five denning seasons. This number represents 
roughly 5 percent of the approximately 120 SBS polar bear dens that are 
established each year. The mitigation measures included in the Request 
reduce the number of dens whose occupants are estimated to be disturbed 
by the specified activities to 2.4 percent of the land-based dens and 
1.2 percent of all dens in the SBS polar bear stock (figure 2, below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC26.001

    7. The FWS predictive model estimates 13 cubs may experience Level 
A harassment as a result of the specified activities over a period of 5 
years. Even if 13 cubs actually experience Level A harassment over 5 
years, that would not alter the distribution of cub survival 
probabilities for the SBS polar bear stock. The impact of these 
estimated harassment events can be quantified by first evaluating the 
estimated survival consequence to individual cubs and then estimating 
associated changes in overall survival rates for the stock. Lacking 
data regarding individual cub survival, we conduct this analysis using 
the metric of litter survival, which has been estimated by relevant 
empirical studies included in the supplemental information on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694). While the 
metric does not account for partial litter loss (because a sow observed 
with one cub in the spring is assumed to have had an original litter 
size of one cub), it also cannot account for natural litter sizes of 
zero (because a sow observed with no cubs in spring is assumed to have 
lost a litter). Because this metric is derived from the available 
scientific studies (i.e., Rode et al 2018, Andersen et al 2024,), and 
because it is not biased in only one direction, we feel it is the most 
appropriate available metric to reflect potential impacts on cub 
survival.
    The denning analysis model allows us to compare the probability of 
litter survival using both the undisturbed and disturbed (if 
applicable) emergence and departure dates of simulated dens. With this 
information, we can estimate the average decrease in survival 
probability that can be attributed to simulated Industry disturbance. 
From the model, the mean probability of litter survival for dens 
experiencing Level A harassment decreased 12.6 percent after simulated 
disturbance (pre-disturbance 85.5 percent, post-disturbance 72.9 
percent).
    When examining the potential impact of 13 Level A harassment events 
at the stock level (as estimated by the model), we consider the low 
percentage of SBS dens with cubs that the model anticipates will 
experience Level A harassment. Given that 2.4 percent of land-based 
dens within the SBS stock

[[Page 66222]]

are anticipated to experience Level A harassment in any year, the 
modeled 12.6 percent decrease does not alter or shift the overall 
survival probability distribution for the SBS stock (figure 3, below). 
Further, if we examine the modeled distribution of survival rates for 
the entire land-based SBS stock, counting for potential decrease in 
survival due to both potential Level A harassment and potential lethal 
take via den abandonment (which is not anticipated), the model shows no 
more than a minor change in distribution, as is illustrated by the 
similarities of the graphs in figure 3.
    In the most impactful year of the ITR, we there will be an average 
of 54 litters with cubs at the start of the year (some sows will 
naturally have no cubs). After applying the undisturbed survival rates 
to these simulated dens, we estimate an average of 46.7 dens will have 
at least one surviving cub in the spring. The estimate from the model 
decreases to an average of 46.4 dens when accounting for disturbance, 
indicating the effect of disturbance at the stock level is 
statistically insignificant. Further, it is important to acknowledge 
that roughly half of SBS polar bear dens are not found on land, but 
rather on the sea ice, and would not overlap spatially with the 
specified activities.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 66223]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC26.002

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    8. Lethal take via den abandonment is rare within the SBS polar 
bear stock. Records of den abandonment in the oilfield are rare--the 
FWS has only one account of potential den abandonment within the 13 
case studies used to develop early denning period disturbance rates. 
Applying the denning model, the greatest annual simulated probability 
of lethal take throughout the ITR period is 0.12. The aggregated 
probability of potential lethal take over

[[Page 66224]]

a 5-year period is 0.43. The median number of lethal takes in both the 
annual and 5-year aggregated modeling outputs was zero. These results, 
coupled with the lack of observed den abandonment, supports our finding 
that lethal take due to sow abandonment of the den and litter during 
the early denning period is unlikely.
    9. We do not anticipate that loss of a cub or litter will adversely 
affect annual recruitment rates at the stock level. Under the ITRs, 
anticipated incidental Level A harassment only involves cubs during the 
denning period. Impacts to denning females, the demographic group most 
important to annual recruitment, would only involve take by Level B 
harassment. Therefore, the immediate number of potentially available 
reproductive females that would contribute to recruitment for the SBS 
polar bear stock would remain unaffected if a den disturbance were to 
result in the mortality of the cubs. If a den disturbance were to 
result in the mortality of the entire litter, the female would be 
available to breed during the next mating season and could produce 
another litter during the next denning season.
    Cubs inherently cannot contribute to annual rates of recruitment 
until they have reached sexual maturity because in wildlife biology the 
concept of recruitment speaks to individuals entering the reproductive 
population. Further, while adult male bears would contribute to the 
overall number of individuals in the population, they do not contribute 
significantly to annual rates of recruitment. While a very small 
decrease in the number of males in a breeding population may be a 
concern if the stock was at risk of inbreeding depression or Allee 
effects (e.g., decrease in population size or individual fitness in 
response to low population density), this is not the case in the SBS 
polar bear stock. Female cubs have the opportunity to reach sexual 
maturity and contribute to annual recruitment; however, natural rates 
of survival fluctuate in the SBS polar bear stock. Death of one female 
cub less than once per year is within the natural variability found 
within the SBS polar bear stock and cannot be reasonably expected to 
cause an adverse impact on annual rates of recruitment.
    Based on the low percentage of SBS stock polar bears potentially 
being removed from the stock even if den disturbance were to result in 
the mortality of the cubs, and the expectation that the number of 
potentially available reproductive females that would contribute to 
recruitment would be unaffected by den disturbance, the FWS does not 
anticipate that the loss of a cub or litter would adversely affect 
annual recruitment rates at the population level for the SBS stock of 
polar bears.
    We reviewed the effects of Industry activities on polar bears, 
including impacts from surface interactions, aircraft overflights, 
marine vessel traffic, and den disturbance. Based on our review of 
these potential impacts, past monitoring reports, and the biology and 
natural history of polar bears, we conclude that any incidental take 
reasonably likely to occur as a result of specified activities would be 
limited to short-term behavioral disturbances and temporary reductions 
in fitness that would not affect the annual rates of recruitment or 
survival for the SBS stock of polar bears.
    The FWS has analyzed the potential impact of the proposed taking in 
light of other factors affecting SBS polar bears, including but not 
limited to subsistence harvest and other human-caused removals, as well 
as other ongoing and authorized oil and gas activities (which, like the 
specified activities considered in this ITR, are anticipated to affect 
SBS polar bears via limited short-term behavioral disturbances and 
temporary reductions in fitness). As we gain a better understanding of 
these and other effects, we will incorporate the information in future 
authorizations. While a variety of ongoing factors pose challenges to 
SBS polar bears, we do not expect them to influence the degree of 
impacts (i.e., short-term behavioral responses and temporary reductions 
in fitness) resulting from the specified activities or incidental 
harassment to be authorized over the next 5 years under the ITRs.
    Our analysis indicates that the impacts of these specified 
activities over 5 years cannot be reasonably expected to, and are not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the SBS stock of polar bears 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Similarly, 
the estimated impacts described in AOGA's Request, which are lower than 
those of the FWS predictive model, cannot be reasonably expected to, 
and are not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the SBS stock of 
polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. 
We find that the total of the taking will have no more than a 
negligible impact on the SBS stock of polar bears.
    When examining the potential impact of 20 takes by Level B 
harassment of Pacific walrus at the stock level, we consider the nature 
of the potential harassment, which is expected to be limited to 
temporary disturbance of behavioral patterns that will not impact the 
recruitment or survival of the effected individuals. The potential 
effects of greatest concern to walrus are associated with human-induced 
stampedes at walrus coastal haulout sites. Hauled out walruses tend to 
be in close physical contact, with groups ranging from a few animals up 
to tens of thousands of individuals--the largest aggregations occurring 
at land haulouts (Gilbert 1999, Monson et al. 2013, USFWS 2017). Intra-
specific trauma at coastal haulouts is a known source of injury and 
mortality (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). The risk of stampede-related 
injuries increases with the number of animals hauled out and with the 
duration spent on coastal haulouts. Calves and young are the most 
vulnerable to suffer injuries and/or mortality (USFWS 2017). There has 
never been a reported large coastal haulout site located in the South 
Beaufort Sea, nor is there any reason to suspect a large coastal 
haulout may occur in the near future given the extremely low density 
and transient nature of walrus in the region. Therefore, 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 promulgation of these ITRs.

Impact on Subsistence Use

    Based on information from past community consultations, as well as 
our analysis of hunting area locations, which did not identify any 
overlap between hunting areas and the specified activities--and the 
best scientific information available--including monitoring data from 
similar activities, we find that take caused by the specified 
activities in the specified geographic region will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of polar bears or 
walruses for taking for Alaska Native subsistence uses during the 
specified timeframe.
    While SBS polar bears and walruses represent a small portion, in 
terms of the number of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for 
the Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik communities, their harvest is 
important to Alaska Natives. However, the majority of project 
activities are within an established industrial area where harvest is 
not conducted. Walrus harvest from Nuiqsut and Kaktovik is 
opportunistic, and none of the walrus harvests for Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, 
or Kaktovik from 2014 through 2024 have occurred within the area of 
specified activities. The FWS has not received any reports and is not 
aware of

[[Page 66225]]

information that indicates that polar bears or walruses are being or 
will be deterred from hunting areas or impacted in any way that 
diminishes their availability for Alaska Native subsistence use by the 
specified activities. In their Request, AOGA has committed to notify 
the Village of Kaktovik and Village of Nuiqsut of the planned 
activities and document any discussions of potential conflict. LOA 
holders would contact Alaska Native subsistence communities that may be 
affected by their activities to discuss potential conflicts caused by 
location, timing, and methods of the specified activities. They would 
also make reasonable efforts to ensure that activities do not interfere 
with subsistence hunting and that adverse effects on the availability 
of polar bears and walruses 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 and 
walruses for subsistence uses. However, should such a concern be 
voiced, POCs would identify measures to minimize any adverse effects 
and these measures will be implemented. POCs would further ensure that 
the specified activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of the species or stock for Alaska Native subsistence 
uses. POCs provide the procedures addressing how LOA holders will work 
with the affected Alaska Native communities and what actions will be 
taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of polar bears or 
walruses, as warranted.

Least Practicable Adverse Impact

    These ITRs must set forth, among other things, means of effecting 
the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its 
habitat. We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of 
mitigation measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the 
specified activities; and the best available scientific information, 
including monitoring data during Industry activities in the specified 
geographic region. The FWS did not identify any additional (i.e., not 
already included in the Request), practicable mitigation measures to 
decrease the potential impact of the specified activities on walruses 
or their habitat, but we determined one additional mitigation measure 
noted below would decrease the potential impact of the specified 
activities on polar bears.
    The additional mitigation measure is a larger 1.6 km (1 mi) 
mitigation zone surrounding polar bear sows and their cub(s) at den 
sites. Under this measure, LOA holders would consult with the FWS on 
any activities that need to occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a den 
location. The FWS would work cooperatively with LOA holders to identify 
mitigation measures, such as decreased and slowed traffic, personnel 
education, and increased monitoring, to decrease the potential impact 
of activities in the mitigation zone on polar bears.
    We find that the mitigation measures already included within AOGA's 
Request will ensure the least practicable adverse impact on walruses 
and their habitat, and that the mitigation measures already included 
within AOGA's Request and the additional mitigation measure described 
above will ensure the least practicable adverse impact on polar bears 
and their habitat.
    A number of mitigation measures were considered but determined to 
be not practicable. These measures are listed below:
    <bullet> Require a third AIR survey of polar bear denning habitat 
within 1.6 km (1 mi) of onshore winter activities in the high-density 
denning zone--The FWS recognizes the important role that AIR surveys 
play in mitigating adverse impacts to polar bear. Per the Request, 
surveyed locations that yield heat signatures that indicate the 
possible presence of a maternal polar bear den will be re-surveyed, 
which could involve follow-up surveys via AIR, handheld or vehicle-
mounted infrared cameras or binoculars, or the use of UAS in 
coordination with FWS. FWS anticipates that the added value of a third 
AIR survey will be less than that of the initial two surveys, as FWS 
anticipates fewer previously unidentified dens to be identified. While 
there are meaningful differences between the circumstances where three 
AIR surveys required and conducted in the 2021-2026 ITR and the three 
AIR surveys proposed as an additional mitigation measure in the 
proposed ITR, no additional dens were detected by the third AIR surveys 
conducted under the 2021-2026 ITR. With additional AIR surveys, the 
corresponding burden on operators increases, particularly with the 
specific time restrictions on all three AIR surveys in the proposed 
ITR. The undue logistical, human safety and economic burden is driven 
by a number of factors, including the availability of aircraft, 
specialized equipment, pilots, and personnel to monitor the equipment, 
and the requirement to conduct the additional AIR survey in a short 
time period in a harsh operational environment with weather 
constraints. The requester has explained that a single AIR survey 
involves a crew of three to four people flying in a small aircraft at 
night (or periods of little or no daylight), flying approximately 400 
miles or more over the course of 4-5 hours in remote areas of the 
Arctic. The surveys occur during times of the year when temperatures 
can reach -55 degrees Farenheit below zero. These temperatures and 
nighttime operations raise human safety considerations, which include 
the potential that a search and rescue effort for a downed aircraft and 
personnel would place the safety of the personnel conducting those 
operations at risk.
    The requester has further explained that conducting AIR surveys on-
schedule can be very difficult because of the harsh Arctic weather and 
the logistical challenges associated with carrying out activities in 
the Arctic. Planned surveys can be delayed for days and often can only 
be conducted during short windows of opportunity. That can be 
challenging enough for a single survey, or even two surveys, but it can 
be particularly constraining for three surveys. Surveys also require 
significant advance planning, including the transport of crews from 
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the contiguous U.S. to the Arctic, the hiring 
and scheduling of a double crew of pilots and maintenance personnel, 
rental of short-term hanger space, deployment of specialized resources 
and equipment from out-of-state, and on-the-ground provisions in the 
Arctic. Additionally, the requester provided an example from one of its 
members that the third survey requirement caused the cancellation of 
freight and operations flights to prioritize completion of these 
surveys. In light of all of these considerations, the FWS concludes 
that a general third AIR survey is not practicable.
    <bullet> Require use of helicopters for AIR surveys--Use of 
helicopters to survey active polar bear dens might lead to greater 
levels of disturbance and take compared to fixed-wing aircraft. This 
statement is supported by greater harassment rates for helicopter 
overflights compared to fixed-wing overflights determined in the 
aircraft take estimate analysis. Additionally, there is no published 
data to indicate increased den detection efficacy of helicopter AIR.
    <bullet> Require optimal weather conditions for AIR surveys--
Appropriate weather conditions for AIR surveys are incorporated into 
the Request and an FWS-required mitigation measure. Additional 
restrictions would not be practicable for the specified activities due 
to the available timeframe to complete AIR surveys.
    <bullet> Ground all flights if they must fly below 457 m (1,500 
ft)--Requiring all

[[Page 66226]]

aircraft to maintain an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) at all times is 
not practicable as some operations may require flying below that level 
to perform necessary inspections or maintain safety of flight crew. 
Aircraft are required to fly above 457 m (1,500 ft) at all times within 
805 m (0.5 mi) of an observed polar bear or walrus unless there is an 
emergency.
    <bullet> Require speed restrictions for all aircraft operations--
Requiring all aircraft to operate below a specific speed limit is not 
practicable as some operations may require speeds above the specified 
speed limit to maintain safety of the flight crew during various 
weather conditions. Additionally, aircraft operating at lower speeds 
may increase the duration of impact and potentially result in greater 
levels of disturbance to polar bears or walruses.
    <bullet> Spatial and temporal restrictions on surface activity--
Some spatial and temporal restrictions of operations were included in 
AOGA's Request; however, additional restrictions would not be 
practicable for the specified activities based on other regulatory and 
safety requirements, and the need to meet project objectives such as 
acquiring sufficient data.
    <bullet> Operational exclusion zone around all known polar bear 
denning habitat--A 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone around all 
known polar bear denning habitat is not practicable as much of AOGA's 
specified survey area occurs within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat; 
thus, to exclude all areas within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat 
would preclude many project activities from occurring.
    <bullet> Prohibit driving over high relief areas, embankments, or 
stream and river crossings--In their Request AOGA has committed to 
avoid operating in potential den locations. This includes providing 
crews GPS displays that highlight areas precluded from surface travel, 
training crews to recognize denning habitat and signs of animal 
activity, and scouting ahead with smaller/lighter equipment to evaluate 
travel routes before larger equipment arrives. Most travel will avoid 
embankments and steep slopes that polar bears utilize for denning, but 
scouting activity helps to further identify areas to avoid. To 
completely avoid these types of areas would likely cause personnel to 
drive further away from established operational areas and unnecessarily 
create additional safety concerns. Furthermore, other mitigation 
measures to minimize impact on 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 ITRs, and this probability will be 
further mitigated by AIR surveys at the beginning of the specified 
activities to detect dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the activities.
    <bullet> Use of a broader definition of ``denning habitat'' for 
operational offsets--No data are available to support broadening the 
defining features of denning habitat beyond that established by the 
U.S. Geological Survey.
    <bullet> Prohibit activities within designated critical habitat for 
polar bears--Critical habitat for polar bears must be considered during 
the specified activities; however, complete prohibition is not 
practicable due to the large spatial extent of critical habitat and 
project objectives.
    <bullet> Establish corridors for female and cub transit to the sea 
ice--As no data support the existence of natural transit corridors to 
the sea ice, establishment of corridors in the ITR region would be 
highly speculative. Therefore, no mitigative benefit would be realized 
by their establishment.
    <bullet> Require third-party neutral marine mammal observers--AOGA 
has committed to conducting polar bear training that meets FWS 
standards and will use bear guards to monitor for polar bears during 
project activities. These bear guards will be fully incentivized to 
diligently monitor for polar bears given inherent safety 
considerations.
    <bullet> Require all activities to immediately cease if a polar 
bear or walrus is injured or killed until an investigation is 
completed--The FWS has incorporated into the ITRs reporting 
requirements for all polar bear and walrus interactions. While 
immediately ceasing all activities may aid in any subsequent 
investigation, doing so may not be practicable or safe in certain 
circumstances and, thus, will not be mandated.
    <bullet> Require use of den detection dogs--Requiring scent-trained 
dogs to detect polar bear dens across the broader ITR region is not 
practicable or safe due to the large spatial extent that would need to 
be surveyed. Such a wide-scale survey may also require additional 
transit vehicles and accommodations, which could increase disturbance 
to polar bears. However, in their Request, AOGA considered use of 
scent-trained dogs as a mitigation action when hotspots are identified, 
stating that their best use is one-time verification at a specific site 
(rather than routine monitoring or surveying large areas). This site-
specific use, which is different than potential wide-spread surveys, 
may be used as deemed appropriate.
    <bullet> Construct safety gates, fences, and enclosures to prevent 
polar bears from accessing facilities--Constructing safety gates, 
fences, and enclosures to prevent polar bears from accessing all 
facilities is not practicable due to the short-term and relatively 
mobile project activities and temporary facilities.
    <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 polar bear dens 
versus ground-based forward-looking infrared (handheld or vehicle-
mounted) due to impacts of blowing snow on detection. AOGA has 
previously incorporated into their mitigation measures the use of 
handheld or vehicle-mounted forward-looking infrared when transiting 
rivers occurring in suitable denning habitat, but it is not practicable 
to use the equipment during all transit.
    <bullet> Temporal restrictions after July 18--While AOGA has 
committed to prioritizing cleanup in coastal areas first to complete 
them prior to July 18, the overall timing of cleanup activities is 
dependent upon snow-free conditions, which vary yearly and may not 
occur before July 18.

Monitoring and Reporting

    The purpose of monitoring requirements is to assess the effects of 
the specified activities on polar bears and walruses, verify compliance 
with the ITRs and LOAs, detect any unanticipated effects on the species 
or stock, and ensure take will not have more than a negligible impact 
on species or stocks. Monitoring includes documenting when and how 
polar bears and walruses are observed, the number of polar bears or 
walruses, and their behavior during the observation. To the extent 
possible, personnel that encounter polar bears or walruses will record 
group size, age, sex, behavior, duration of observation, and closest 
approach to human activity. The AOGA would report all observations of 
polar bears or walruses. This information allows the FWS to measure 
encounter rates, examine trends in polar bear and walrus activity and 
distribution in the industrial areas, and estimate the number of polar 
bears or walruses potentially affected by industrial activities.
    The FWS would provide AOGA with the most recent and up-to-date 
Polar Bear and/or Walrus Observation Form in which to record 
observations of polar bears or walruses. Observations must be reported 
to the FWS's Marine Mammals

[[Page 66227]]

Management Office within 48 hours of the observation and submitted to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0c6d797ffcdcdcdffd2c5d0cfd2d4d3e0c6d7d38ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e18796d6be8c8c8cbe9384918e939592a1879692cf868e97">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. Details on monitoring guidelines and reporting 
requirements can be read below in the regulation promulgation portion 
of this document in Sec.  18.127 Monitoring and Sec.  18.128 Reporting 
requirements.

Summary of and Response to Comments and Recommendations

Response to Comments

    The FWS published a proposed ITR in the Federal Register on March 
9, 2026, with a 30-day period seeking comments on both the proposed ITR 
and draft EA (91 FR 11240). The comment period closed on April 8, 2026. 
The FWS received 85,589 comments. Comments were received from the 
requester, the State of Alaska, the North Slope Borough, various 
advocacy organizations, student groups, a corporation, and interested 
members of the public. Submissions with multiple signatures were 
counted as multiple comments (one comment per individual signing).
    The majority of comments (77,468) were part of mass mailing 
campaigns, where members of public added information and signatures to 
letters led by environmental organizations expressing opposition to the 
promulgation of the regulations. Outside of these mass campaigns, an 
additional 8,104 comments were submitted individually. Many of these 
submissions were identical or highly similar variations of nine 
different comment letters all expressing opposition to the regulations. 
A small number of comments were submitted to this docket by mistake, 
either as duplicate entries or as comments intended for a different 
docket. Nearly all individually submitted comments expressed opposition 
to the regulations.
    We reviewed all comments, which are part of the docket for these 
ITRs, for substantive issues, new information, and recommendations 
regarding these ITRs and EA. The FWS used ``DocketScope'' to aggregate 
comments submitted by the public. The comments are aggregated by 
subject matter, summarized and addressed below, and changes have been 
incorporated into the final ITRs and final EA as appropriate. A summary 
of the changes to these final ITRs from the proposed ITR is found in 
the preamble section, entitled Summary of Changes from the Proposed 
Regulations.
    Comment (1): Many commenters responded to FWS's statement in the 
proposed ITR that ``[t]he 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.'' Commenters offered different views 
on how FWS should proceed in this regard.
    Our Response: After considering the various interpretations and 
perspectives provided via public comments, FWS finds that approach (1) 
as described in this comment and in the proposed ITR reflects the best 
reading of the MMPA. Where FWS receives an adequate and complete 
request for an ITR, satisfies applicable procedural requirements and 
makes findings that the incidental taking from the specified activities 
will comply with applicable MMPA standards (i.e., small numbers, 
negligible impact, and no unmitigable adverse impacts on the 
availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence uses), 
FWS will issue an ITR allowing for all types of incidental take that 
result from the specified activities (to the extent they are conducted 
in compliance with ITR and LOA requirements).
    This interpretation flows from section 101(a)(5)(A) which provides 
that in the circumstances described above, the Secretary ``shall allow 
. . . the incidental, but not intentional, taking by citizens while 
engaging in [a specified activity within a specified geographical 
region. . . .]'' This statutory directive to allow ``the incidental . . 
. taking'' is non-discretionary (i.e., the Secretary ``shall'' allow 
it) and is not limited or caveated by any language concerning the types 
or numbers of incidental taking to be allowed.
    Additional support for this interpretation is provided in comment 
responses below. Since the proposed regulatory text provided in the 
proposed ITR reflected the interpretation described above, no related 
changes to that regulatory text are made in this final ITR.
    Comment (2): One comment agreed that this interpretation reflects 
the best reading of the MMPA, noting that the exemption from the MMPA's 
general take prohibition afforded by section 101(a)(5)(A) focuses on 
``citizens . . . who engage in a specified activity . . . within a 
specified geographical region,'' and then exempts ``the incidental, but 
not intentional taking by citizens while engaging in that activity 
within that region.'' The comment also notes case law recognizing that 
there is nothing in section 101(a)(5)(A) that requires FWS, when 
promulgating ITRs, to quantify or estimate the number of animals that 
would be taken.
    Our Response: FWS agrees with this interpretation of section 
101(a)(5)(A). FWS also recognizes that the absence of a requirement to 
quantify or estimate the number of animals that would be taken when 
promulgating ITRs further undercuts the notion that ITRs may only allow 
that incidental take which was quantified or estimated. FWS relatedly 
notes that the statutory provision establishing the required contents 
of ITRs expressly requires FWS to set forth, inter alia, ``permissible 
methods of taking pursuant to such activity'' but says nothing of 
permissible types or numbers of taking pursuant to such activity (16 
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)(II)).
    Comment (3): Some comments asserted that because FWS cannot 
authorize incidental take unless FWS finds the total taking will comply 
with certain MMPA standards, it necessarily follows that FWS cannot 
authorize any additional take beyond what it anticipated in making its 
MMPA findings.
    Our Response: The FWS agrees that it cannot authorize incidental 
take under section 101(a)(5)(A) unless it first makes certain MMPA 
findings. However, FWS disagrees with the comments' ensuing conclusion, 
in part because it conflates the separate statutory standards governing 
(1) when ITRs may (or more precisely, must) be issued and (2) what an 
ITR (if issued) must allow.
    When reviewing requests for ITRs, FWS makes MMPA findings that are 
inherently predictive in that they concern anticipated or expected 
takings from all future activities anticipated or expected to be 
conducted under the ITR (i.e., the total taking). Where FWS makes the 
requisite MMPA findings, it must issue an ITR. The ITR must then 
``allow . . . the incidental, but not intentional, taking by citizens 
engaging in that activity within that region. . . .'' (section 
101(a)(5)(A)(i)). The statutory language establishing the scope of 
incidental taking to be allowed in ITRs does not mention predictive 
take estimates.
    FWS recognizes that estimates of impacts from future activities 
rarely align perfectly with the actual impacts from those activities 
once conducted. It is always possible that FWS may overestimate or 
underestimate impacts resulting from the specified activities whenever 
it reviews ITR requests and makes its MMPA findings. The comments here 
seem to argue for a mechanism to ensure that the scope of allowable 
incidental take does not exceed the scope of previously estimated 
incidental take. However, the

[[Page 66228]]

text of section 101(a)(5)(A) does not accommodate such a mechanism and 
Congress has already described in a separate provision what FWS must do 
if the specified activities cause unforeseen impacts.
    Section 101(a)(5)(B) of the MMPA establishes the circumstances 
under which the permission to incidentally take marine mammals under 
subparagraph (A) must be withdrawn or suspended, either on an 
individual or class basis. One of these circumstances is where ``the 
taking allowed under [the ITR] pursuant . . . is having, or may have, 
more than a negligible impact on the species or stock concerned'' (16 
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(B)(ii)). This fail-safe provision demonstrates 
Congress' awareness that the Secretary's predictive MMPA findings under 
subparagraph (A) might not account for the full extent of actual 
impacts from the specified activities, due to unforeseen circumstances 
or other reasons. The fact that a fail-safe provision that provides FWS 
a recourse in the event of unforeseen impacts is already built into 
section 101(a)(5)(B) further argues against reading an additional, 
unspoken precautionary mandate into the text of section 101(a)(5)(A).
    The commenters' interpretation of what MMPA incidental take can be 
authorized pursuant to an ITR also results in misalignment between MMPA 
and Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) provisions 
concerning incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammals. Under the 
ESA's section 7 consultation provisions, where a biological opinion 
concludes that incidental take will result from the proposed action but 
would not violate the substantive standards of section 7(a)(2), the 
biological opinion must provide an incidental take statement (ITS) (16 
U.S.C. 1536(b)(4); see also 50 CFR 402.14(i)). The ITS must specify, 
inter alia, reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impact of 
the taking and set forth terms and conditions that the action agency or 
any applicant must comply with to implement those reasonable and 
prudent measures. Congress made clear that any taking ``that is in 
compliance with the terms and conditions specified in [the ITS] shall 
not be considered to be a prohibited taking of the species concerned'' 
(16 U.S.C. 1536(o)(2)). Nothing in the ESA or its implementing 
regulations allows (much less requires) the consulting agency to limit 
the scope of this exemption to correspond to the types or numbers of 
incidental takings that it anticipated in its biological opinion. The 
exemption plainly applies to all incidental taking that is in 
compliance with the terms and conditions of the ITS. This is important 
here because a further requirement applies where the consultation 
involves ESA-listed marine mammals, i.e., incidental take of marine 
mammals cannot be exempted under the ESA unless the taking is 
authorized pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA (see 16 U.S.C. 
1536(b)(4)(C)). Limiting the scope of an MMPA authorization in the 
manner suggested by commenters serves to preclude full implementation 
of the ESA's incidental take exemption provision. Under the commenters' 
interpretation, a citizen could be issued an MMPA section 101(a)(5) 
authorization, fully comply with the mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements of that authorization, fully comply with the 
terms and conditions of an ITS, and yet remain liable for certain 
incidental take under both the MMPA and ESA. This result does not 
square with the plain meaning of section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA or 
section 7(o)(2) of the ESA.
    The commenters' interpretation also results in misalignment between 
the MMPA and a key ESA provision specific to polar bears. FWS's ESA 
section 4(d) rule for polar bears serves to generally prohibit take of 
polar bears but makes a key exception: ``None of the prohibitions in 
Sec.  17.31 of this part apply to any activity that is authorized or 
exempted under the [MMPA]. . . provided that the person carrying out 
the activity has complied with all the terms and conditions that apply 
to that activity under the provisions of the MMPA. . . and [its] 
implementing regulations'' (50 CFR 17.40(q)(2) and 73 FR 28306, May 15, 
2008). Like the MMPA's ITR provisions, this 4(d) rule provision applies 
to categories of ``activities'' as opposed to the types or numbers of 
take anticipated by FWS in its predictive analyses of such activities. 
Here again, limiting the extent of allowable MMPA take in the manner 
suggested by the commenters serves to preclude full implementation of 
an ESA provision. In this case, declining to implement an ``activity''-
based approach when allowing incidental take under section 101(a)(5) 
undercuts FWS's intent in promulgating the polar bear 4(d) Rule. See 
FWS's ESA section 4(d) rule for polar bears which states (``This 
special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA aligns ESA incidental take 
provisions for polar bears with incidental take provisions of the MMPA 
and its implementing regulations'' (73 FR 28306 at 28310, May 15, 
2008).
    There are also some important policy and enforcement considerations 
at play here. FWS's interpretation promotes fairness and regulatory 
certainty in that LOA recipients who conduct their specified activities 
in compliance with all ITR and LOA requirements (including the 
mitigation measures that ensure the least practicable adverse impact on 
marine mammals) remain insulated from legal liability where FWS's 
predictive estimates prove inaccurate. Also, in FWS's prior experience, 
where the extent of allowable incidental take is limited to correspond 
to FWS's predictive estimates, it can be very difficult for FWS to 
adequately support enforcement actions concerning any ``extra'' and 
thus unauthorized incidental takes. This is largely because incidental 
take can be difficult to detect. The March 9, 2026, proposed ITR 
touched on this issue in the context of polar bears when it explained 
that ``ambient conditions common to the ITR area (e.g., darkness, snow, 
fog, and wind) can reduce the ability to observe polar bears (and 
impacts, if any) in the vicinity of industrial activities'', and 
certain types of potential impacts ``would likely manifest after [the 
polar bears have] departed from the observable area . . .'' (91 FR 
11240 at 11252). Incomplete information concerning the extent of an LOA 
recipient's prior incidental taking makes it difficult for FWS to 
sufficiently establish that one or more ``extra'' and thus unauthorized 
incidental takings have occurred. The notion (which seems implicit in 
these comments) that FWS could reliably identify and enforce against 
all ``extra'' and thus unauthorized takings is undercut by these 
practical realities.
    Comment (4): Several comments stated that issuing an ITR that 
allows all incidental take resulting from the specified activities is 
inconsistent with the conservation-based purposes of the MMPA.
    Response: The FWS disagrees. Whether an incidental taking is 
authorized pursuant to an ITR, or remains prohibited under the MMPA's 
general take prohibition, is immaterial to the extent of any associated 
impact to the marine mammal itself. The only change concerns the legal 
liability of the person or entity that commits the take. Meanwhile, FWS 
does not believe that allowing all incidental taking resulting from 
specified activities conducted in accordance with ITR and LOA 
requirements incentivizes or otherwise results in more frequent or more 
severe taking. ITR and LOA requirements already ensure the least 
practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and 
any incidental taking that results from activities that

[[Page 66229]]

are not conducted in full compliance with ITR and LOA requirements 
remain prohibited and subject to enforcement.
    Comment (5): Several comments expressed confusion stemming from the 
proposed ITR's inclusion of the word ``Nonlethal'' in the proposed 
title of a new Subpart J, despite other text indicating that all forms 
of incidental take could be allowed.
    Response: FWS regrets any confusion; this word appears to have been 
accidentally carried over as an artifact from a prior iteration of the 
Beaufort Sea ITR. While no lethal take is expected to result from the 
specified activities, the proposed regulatory provisions did 
contemplate allowing all forms of incidental take that could result 
from the specified activities, and FWS received many comments on that 
aspect of the proposed ITR. The referenced use of ``Nonlethal'' is 
omitted from this final rule.
    Comment (6): One comment suggested that allowing for all incidental 
take that results from the specified activities (not just the take that 
was anticipated when developing the ITR) is incompatible with FWS's 
implementing regulations which require analysis of the ``total 
taking.''
    Our Response: FWS disagrees. The comment quotes from the preamble 
to the 1989 final rule (54 FR 40338, September 29, 1989) that 
established FWS's implementing regulations. The referenced language 
calls for FWS to estimate the ``total takings expected'' from all the 
activities expected to be covered by the ITR. FWS has done so in its 
analysis here.
    The comment then suggests that this preamble language, which 
concerns what is to be estimated during the rulemaking process, 
dictates that scope of incidental take that an ITR (if issued) can 
allow. There is no support for that conclusion in the preamble much 
less in the regulatory provisions themselves. FWS's implementing 
regulations address the required contents of ITRs at 50 CFR 
18.27(e)(1). This provision (which essentially repeats the statutory 
provisions of section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II)) requires ITRs to set forth 
permissible methods of taking pursuant to the relevant activities but 
does not require ITRs to set forth permissible types or numbers of 
taking pursuant to those activities. The ensuing provision at 50 CFR 
18.27(e)(1)(2) then provides that ``. . . [a]s new information is 
developed, through monitoring, reporting, or research, the regulations 
may be modified, in whole or in part. . . .''. Implicit here is the 
recognition that if monitoring and reporting data indicates that 
unexpected degrees of take are occurring from the specified activities, 
FWS can reassess the ITR and, if appropriate, take corrective action.
    The referenced preamble is instructive as to what the phrase 
``total taking'' means in the ITR context. Relevant portions of the 
preamble explain:

    Before the Service may allow a taking of marine mammals under 
the authority of section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA, it must find that 
the total taking expected from the specified activity will have a 
negligible impact on that species or stock. . . . In determining 
impact, the Service must evaluate the ``total taking'' expected from 
the specified activity in a specific geographic area. The estimate 
of total taking involves the accumulation of impacts from all 
anticipated activities that are expected to be covered by the 
specific regulations. In other words, the applicant's anticipated 
taking from its own activities is only one part of the story; the 
total takings expected from all persons conducting the activities to 
be covered by the regulations must be determined. (54 FR 40338 at 
40340 and 40342, September 29, 1989).

    In other words, ``total taking'' simply clarifies the scope of 
activities (i.e., all those ``anticipated'' or ``expected'' to be 
covered by the ITR) and potential taking (i.e., the ``anticipated'' or 
``expected'' taking from those activities) to be considered when 
rendering predictive MMPA findings (e.g., ``negligible impact''). It 
does not circumscribe the scope of incidental take that ITRs (if 
issued, after the requisite MMPA findings are made) must allow.
    Comment (7): Several commenters stated the FWS must elaborate on 
the three potential interpretations of the MMPA presented in the 
proposed ITR, stating what they find to be the best reading of the 
MMPA. They state FWS appears to have given more weight to option 1, 
wherein all incidental take associated with the specified activities 
would be authorized. One commenter stated that should the FWS decide to 
use one of the other two options, it should publish a revised proposed 
ITR with an additional opportunity for public comment.
    Our Response: The proposed ITR specifically alerted the public to 
this interpretive question and specifically requested public comment 
concerning the most appropriate resolution. FWS received and considered 
numerous public comments offering different perspectives on this issue. 
FWS then determined that the regulatory text of the proposed ITR 
already reflected the best reading of the statute. That text remains 
unchanged in the final rule, and there was no need to publish a revised 
proposed ITR.
    Comment (8): The requester stated the final rule should clarify the 
LOA process and FWS should issue LOAs for activities within the scope 
and type of activities described in the Request without detailed data 
requirements or new model runs.
    Our Response: Section 18.123 describes FWS's process for reviewing 
LOA requests. This process entails determining ``whether the level of 
activity identified in the request exceeds that analyzed by [FWS] in 
considering the number of animals estimated to be taken and evaluating 
whether there will be a negligible impact on the species or stock and 
an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or 
stock for subsistence uses.'' All specific projects and activities 
described in the Request and reflected in the requester's supporting 
materials are inherently within the ``level of activity. . . considered 
by [FWS] . . .'' in issuing this rule. FWS will thus grant LOA requests 
for such projects and activities without performing further, 
duplicative impact analysis. However, FWS will also consider LOA 
requests pertaining to other projects and activities so long as they 
would be conducted by an eligible entity within the specified 
geographical region and are of same classes and types of activities 
considered in this Rule. These projects or activities were not 
considered by FWS in issuing this rule, and additional analysis would 
be required to determine if the level of activity associated with the 
LOA request would exceed the level of activity already analyzed by FWS. 
In making this determination, FWS would consider the scope of 
activities described in the LOA request under review in combination 
with the scope of any contemporaneous activities covered by existing 
LOAs issued pursuant to this rule. The appropriate method for 
conducting such analyses may vary depending on the specific factual 
circumstances presented, and FWS will not require detailed data 
requirements such as activity footprint ``shapefiles'' and associated 
occupancy rates and remains committed to making decisions on LOA 
requests expeditiously. Clarifying language has been added to 50 CFR 
18.123.
    Comment (9): The requester noted that there is language in the 
preamble that suggests LOA requests will be evaluated against the total 
taking allowable under the ITRs and asserts that this is inconsistent 
with a proposed regulatory provision and FWS's stated approach to 
authorize ``all types of incidental take that result from the specified 
activities.'' The requester

[[Page 66230]]

stated the FWS should revise the preamble text and clarify that this 
Rule does not set a ``total taking allowable'' number.
    Our Response: The referenced preamble text and the FWS implementing 
regulation it refers to (50 CFR 18.27(f)(2)) concern the standard that 
FWS applies when deciding whether to issue a requested LOA. FWS's 
stated approach of authorizing ``all types of incidental take that 
result from the specified activities'' pertains to a different topic, 
i.e., the extent of incidental take that would be allowable under the 
LOA, if issued. The LOA review process described by Sec.  18.123 of 
this Rule squares the regulatory phrase ``total taking allowable'' as 
it appears in 50 CFR 18.27(f)(2) with the best reading of the statute 
by ensuring that the scope of activities and estimated impacts 
associated with approved LOA requests will not exceed what was 
considered in this Rule.
    Comment (10): The requester stated the FWS should clarify the 
potential length of LOAs issued under the proposed ITR, specifically 
highlighting the FWS should allow multi-year LOAs.
    Our Response: The FWS will process and may approve LOA requests for 
periods of up to 5 years under this Rule.
    Comment (11): The requester suggested a revision in the preamble 
text that describes specified activities to include ``. . . some 
projects not explicitly described may occur during the ITR period. All 
activities will be of the same classes and types of activity described 
in the Request as required by the MMPA.''
    Our Response: The FWS will process and may approve LOA requests 
pertaining to projects not explicitly described in the Request or 
preamble text, so long as the project activities described therein 
would be conducted by an eligible entity within the specified 
geographical region and are of same classes and types of activities 
considered in this Rule. In lieu of modifying the ``Description of . . 
. Specified Activities'' section as between the proposed and final 
rules, the FWS has retained the original preamble text, which 
adequately accommodates LOA requests of this nature.
    Comment (12): One commenter stated FWS cannot defer identification 
and analysis of specified activities to the LOA stage, as this would 
call into question the determination that based on the best available 
scientific evidence, the total taking from the specified activities 
included in the request are not reasonably expected to, and are not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. They argued that 
the lack of opportunity for public review of proposed LOAs demonstrates 
that no significant new information or analysis was contemplated to 
occur at the LOA stage.
    Our Response: The FWS has not proposed a mechanism wherein MMPA 
findings are deferred to the LOA stage. This rule fully considers the 
specified activities described in the Request and makes the requisite 
MMPA findings. FWS and reviewing courts have long recognized that 
specified activities may be described broadly at the ITR stage. As we 
have explained above, FWS's subsequent reviews at the LOA stage will 
ensure that sufficient project-specific information was considered at 
the ITR or LOA stage before an LOA is granted, and that levels of 
taking will be consistent with the findings made in this rule.
    Comment (13): One commenter suggested all activities eligible for 
LOAs must be fully analyzed in the ITR to be consistent with the MMPA 
and its implementing regulations. The commenter recommends that the FWS 
rejects deferring identification or analysis of specified activities, 
take estimates, and impacts assessment to the Letter of Authorization 
(LOA) stage.
    Our Response: This rule fully analyzes the potential impact of the 
specified activities described in the Request. FWS's analysis 
considered the descriptions of activities provided in the Request as 
well as the requester's supporting materials, which included spatial 
files reflective of certain ongoing and planned activities. The 
requester has stated some projects not explicitly described may occur 
during the ITR period, and all additional activities will be of the 
same classes and types of activity described in the Request. Should an 
entity request an LOA for projects not previously analyzed, the FWS 
would evaluate the request in the manner described in section 18.123 of 
this rule.
    In a broader sense, the commenter seems to question FWS's use of a 
two-step approach (i.e., ITRs and then LOAs) to authorizing incidental 
take pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. FWS has implemented 
regulations utilizing this approach for decades and it has proven 
successful in authorizing incidental take where warranted, imposing 
mitigation measures that effect the least practicable adverse impact on 
marine mammals, and ensuring that impacts to marine mammal species and 
stocks remain negligible.
    Comment (14): Commenters stated that the proposed ITR is not clear 
on what entities will be eligible for LOAs, as it states that AOGA 
requested eligibility for LOAs be conditioned on active AOGA membership 
but also states that AOGA requested regulations be applicable to AOGA 
members and a non-member company that have applied for the regulations.
    Our Response: The entities listed referenced in Sec.  18.122(b) of 
this final rule, as well as their corporate affiliates, respective 
contractors, subcontractors, partners, owners, co-lessees, designees, 
or successors-in-interest will be eligible to apply for LOAs.
    Comment (15): Some commenters noted that in the requester's 
petition, AOGA requested that eligibility under the proposed ITR be 
conditioned upon active AOGA membership. The proposed ITR extends 
eligibility slightly, but still restricts it to AOGA members, 8 Star 
Alaska, LLC, and their respective corporate affiliates and contractors, 
subcontractors, partners, etc. The commenter then urges the FWS to 
remove all eligibility requirements related to requiring membership in 
AOGA or other industry groups.
    Our Response: The entities listed referenced in Sec.  18.122(b) of 
this final rule, as well as their corporate affiliates, respective 
contractors, subcontractors, partners, owners, co-lessees, designees, 
or successors-in-interest will be eligible to apply for LOAs. If a 
party seeks an incidental take authorization for an activity not 
included in the specified activities, they can apply for a separate 
take authorization.
    Comment (16): Several comments focused on who may apply for an LOA. 
One commenter stated that the FWS providing more flexibility in which 
companies are eligible for LOAs would support conservation and 
compliance objectives such as reducing the likelihood that Industry 
activities would proceed without incidental take coverage due to 
eligibility barriers, ensure all operators are subject to consistent 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, and more flexible 
eligibility requirements would not pose any risks to the MMPA goals or 
the FWS's authority to process LOAs. One commenter stated that the FWS 
restricting LOA eligibility to entities based on their membership with 
the requester raises administrative and legal concerns such as unequal 
treatment of operators conducting similar activities in the same 
geographic region, potential exclusion of entities that are willing to 
comply with ITR requirements but elect not to join a private 
association for independent business or governance reasons or who lack 
a qualifying relationship to an eligible member entity, and unclear 
implications about

[[Page 66231]]

continuity of authorization, transferability, and enforcement if 
membership with the requester changes during the ITR period. They 
further state that the FWS's ability to ensure effective mitigation and 
monitoring requirements relies on clearly enforceable regulatory 
conditions and not whether an entity has a membership with the third-
party organization. Finally, a commenter stated that the FWS 
restricting LOA eligibility to entities that have membership or a 
qualifying relationship with the requester conflicts with the MMPA 
statute of authorizing incidental take by specified activities within a 
defined geographic region, subject to findings regarding small numbers, 
negligible impact, and mitigation.
    Our Response: The entities listed referenced in Sec.  18.122(b) of 
this final rule, as well as their corporate affiliates, respective 
contractors, subcontractors, partners, owners, co-lessees, designees, 
or successors-in-interest will be eligible to apply for LOAs. As is 
reflected in the rule, FWS will not require confirmation of membership 
in AOGA prior to LOA issuance. If a party seeks an incidental take 
authorization for an activity not included in the specified activities, 
they can apply for a separate take authorization.
    Comment (17): One commenter stated that, as noted in the proposed 
ITR's small numbers discussion, the population survey data used to 
calculate the minimum population estimate (Nmin) for the SBS stock of 
polar bears is over 10 years old. They recommended the FWS address if 
and how the age of the survey data impacts their confidence in their 
calculation of potential biological removal (PBR) as 14 bears.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that having a more recent population 
estimate would be ideal; unfortunately these data are difficult to 
obtain. The FWS is currently working with the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) and partners to develop an updated population estimate for the 
SBS stock. The FWS is confident that its calculation of PBR as 14 bears 
in the SBS SAR represents the best available scientific evidence at 
this time. Best available science also indicates the population decline 
that was noted in the mid-2000s appears to have stabilized (Bromaghin 
et al. 2021).
    Comment (18): One commenter stated FWS should reassess its small 
numbers and negligible impact determinations using the minimum 
population estimate from the stock assessment reports (Nmin). They 
state Nmin is more appropriate for FWS to use the minimum population 
estimate (Nmin) for SBS polar bears in its small numbers determination 
rather than a population point estimate because the Nmin value provides 
reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than 
that estimate.
    Our Response: The MMPA does not require FWS to use Nmin when 
calculating small numbers. While Nmin is a valuable conservation 
metric, we find the population estimate to be the most appropriate 
denominator when calculating the percentage of the stock that is 
estimated to be subjected to incidental take as a result of specified 
activities.
    Comment (19): One commenter recommended the FWS commission updated 
population surveys before finalizing the rule because the most recent 
population data is nearly a decade old.
    Our Response: The FWS strives to obtain updated abundance estimates 
for polar bear stocks under its jurisdiction every 10 years. There has 
been an ongoing effort in the past year to use more recent data to 
update the stock's abundance estimate. The FWS anticipates these 
results to be available by the end of 2026. However, the estimate the 
FWS uses for the current ITR represents the best available scientific 
evidence available at this time.
    Comment (20): One commenter recommended the FWS require meaningful, 
independently verified population recovery benchmarks before any 
authorization is issued.
    Our Response: The FWS declines to implement this recommendation as 
the best available scientific information indicates the population 
decline of the SBS Stock in the mid-2000s has appeared to stabilize 
(Bromaghin et al. 2021). Separate from this rulemaking, the FWS, with a 
wide variety of partners from non-governmental conservation 
organizations to oil and gas industry representations, created and 
published the polar bear conservation management plan which presents 
certain benchmarks for polar bears.
    Comment (21): Commenters argued that any additional industrial 
activity or harassment of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea 
stock would be unacceptably harmful since the population is facing 
conservation pressure from declines in sea ice, which force polar bears 
to spend more time on shore. Commenters cited declines in foraging 
opportunities, body condition, cub survival, and overall numbers of 
Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears, sometimes highlighting specific 
population estimates (e.g., estimates from the 1970s, 1990s, a 2021 
stock assessment report, and a 2025 draft stock assessment report) or a 
period of low cub survival (2004-2007). Highly similar comments 
submitted by many individuals stated that peer-reviewed research has 
shown that the polar bear population in Alaska is likely lower than it 
has been at any point since the passage of the MMPA in 1972, and that 
further declines can be expected in the future if protections are not 
strengthened. Commenters stated that strengthened protections, 
including minimizing disturbance and protecting critical habitat, are 
needed to support recovery and prevent further population declines, 
given the vulnerability of the population. Some commenters similarly 
argued that the Pacific walrus population is already vulnerable due to 
sea ice declines and stronger protection is needed, as any additional 
industrial disturbance--especially noise, vessel traffic, and habitat 
disruption--exacerbates existing pressures.
    Our Response: The FWS has carefully assessed anticipated impacts of 
the specified activities on the Southern Beaufort Sea stock of polar 
bears and the Pacific walrus population in light their current statuses 
and the baseline of existing impacts and concluded that incidental take 
associated with specified activities will have no more than a 
negligible impact on these populations. Our analytical methods account 
for the increased industrial footprint and for changing space use 
patterns (e.g., more polar bear denning on shore and summer land use) 
associated with sea ice declines. The ITR includes mitigation and 
monitoring requirements that will limit potential disturbances and 
impacts to habitat. Commenters are correct that the SBS stock has 
declined since the MMPA was passed. Currently, however, existing 
evidence suggests the subpopulation's decline has stabilized and 
survival rates are much higher than during the early 2000s (Bromaghin 
et al. 2021). Some commenters incorrectly suggested that the lower 
population estimate included in the 2025 SBS draft stock assessment 
report indicated a biological decline in the population since the 
publication of the 2021 stock assessment report, but that is not the 
case as the updated population estimate was lower due to a change in 
the boundary that defines the SBS stock (movement of the eastern 
boundary of the SBS stock in Canada to the west).
    Comment (22): Some commenters stated that the relatively late age 
of sexual maturity, slow reproductive rates, and heavy investment in 
each reproductive event for polar bears and walruses make populations 
vulnerable to impacts from oil and gas activities. Regarding polar 
bears, commenters

[[Page 66232]]

stated that any additional cub mortality resulting from den disturbance 
could harm recruitment and population trends due to polar bears' slow 
reproductive cycles, low numbers of dens, and low cub survival rates. 
One commenter stated that in light of the slow reproduction in polar 
bear and walrus life histories, the FWS should explain with much 
greater rigor how additional disturbance to denning, feeding, or 
maternal care can still be considered negligible.
    Our Response: The FWS considered the relatively late age of sexual 
maturity, slow reproductive rates, and heavy investment in each 
reproductive event, population dynamics, among other relevant 
considerations, of SBS polar bears and walruses when analyzing 
potential impacts and developing its MMPA findings. The FWS does not 
anticipate lethal take of polar bears or Pacific walruses as a result 
of the specified activities. The SBS polar bear stock exhibits marked 
natural interannual variation in cub survival rates (Bromaghin et al. 
2021) which are much higher than the anticipated effect of potential 
disturbance. Even with this variation, the most recent and best 
available science has supported that the population has stabilized 
(Bromaghin et al. 2021). Impacts to Pacific walrus are estimated to be 
limited to temporary behavioral disturbances of a very small portion of 
the population that may be encountered outside their typical home 
range.
    Comment (23): One commenter states that the FWS must ensure that 
take authorized under individual LOAs already issued does not exceed 
the extent of take FWS anticipates or authorizes in the proposed ITR.
    Our Response: LOAs already issued will not carry over into this ITR 
period. The FWS will evaluate new requests for LOAs under the 
provisions of this ITR.
    Comment (24): Commenters stated that climate change and increases 
in human presence and activity are reducing habitat available to polar 
bears and walruses, leading to increases in encounters that are 
potentially dangerous.
    Our Response: We account for the increased industrial footprint and 
changing space use patterns (e.g., more denning on shore, more summer 
land use) in our analytical methods, as described in the SUPPLEMENTAL 
INFORMATION.
    Comment (25): Comments stated that walrus populations are 
vulnerable to negative impacts from the rule due to their increased use 
of large coastal haulouts in association with reductions in sea ice. 
They stated that walruses at haulouts, particularly calves, face risks 
of disturbance-related mortality from stampedes and trampling triggered 
by aircraft noise, industrial activity, or human presence, in addition 
to risks of harmful behavioral disturbance.
    Our Response: We agree that large coastal haulouts can be 
particularly vulnerable, however walrus are extralimital (i.e., outside 
their range) in the ITR area and are only encountered in small numbers. 
There are no known walrus haulouts in the ITR area. However, should 
haulouts occur, LOA holders must maintain a mitigative offset in 
vessels or in aircraft.
    Comment (26): One commenter stated that at a time when scientists 
warn of further declines and potential local extinctions in some polar 
bear subpopulations, Federal policy must prioritize habitat protection 
and disturbance minimization, not industrial convenience.
    Our Response: Consistent with MMPA requirements, the final rule 
sets forth, among other things, means of effecting the least 
practicable adverse impact on SBS polar bears, walruses, and their 
habitat.
    Comment (27): Several commenters recommended FWS conduct a more 
robust cumulative impact analysis accounting for prior, ongoing, and 
proposed authorizations, stating that considering individual 
authorizations in isolation obscures long term effects and is 
inconsistent with the MMPA. One commenter stated the FWS must analyze 
the consequences of multiple disturbances from all identified human 
activities with the potential to cause incidental take on individual 
polar bears and the SBS stock overall. One commenter stated the FWS 
must fully analyze the impacts of past take in considering how future 
annual, unknown levels of take authorized for the same population of 
bears pursuant to the proposed ITR will impact the SBS stock.
    Our Response: FWS considered the impacts of the specified 
activities in light of the baseline of existing impacts, which includes 
impacts from ongoing, authorized activities.
    Comment (28): One commenter stated that research shows extended 
ice-free fasting periods and decrease in sea ice extent are causing 
energetic stress to polar bears, and additional energetic costs from 
disturbance could therefore affect survival or reproduction.
    Our Response: The FWS thoroughly discusses the potential effects of 
climate change on polar bears, including changes in sea ice extent, in 
the supplemental information to the proposed ITR. FWS considered this 
information when conducting its analysis and reaching its MMPA 
findings. We acknowledge that changes in the sea ice may lead to longer 
swims between the ice edge and the shore. However, we do not anticipate 
human-polar bear interactions to increase in severity during the 5-year 
ITR period. We anticipate polar bear reactions to continue to be short-
term, temporary disruptions of behavior.
    Comment (29): Some commenters stated that because the steep decline 
in the SBS polar bear population between 2000 and 2010 was driven by 
low cub survival, maximizing cub survival by preventing den disturbance 
is critical. One commenter specifically stated that the FWS failed to 
address the best available scientific information showing cub survival 
rates' influence on population trajectory, citing a study that showed 
high influence of cub survival on SBS polar bear population trajectory 
from 2002-2005.
    Our Response: Bromaghin et al. (2021) noted that after the decline, 
survival rates increased to much higher levels. Further, the SBS polar 
bear stock exhibits marked natural interannual variation in cub 
survival rates (Bromaghin et al. 2021) which are much higher than the 
anticipated effect of potential disturbance from the specified 
activities. Even with this variation, the most recent and best 
available science has supported that the population has stabilized 
(Bromaghin et al. 2021). The FWS has analyzed the possibility of cub 
mortality and the extent to wh

[…truncated; see source link]