[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 105 (Friday, June 1, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30670-30700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10509]
[[Page 30669]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 18
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 30670]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
RIN 1018-AU41
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of proposed incidental harassment
authorization; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes regulations
that would authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of
small numbers of Pacific walruses (walruses) and polar bears during
year-round oil and gas industry (Industry) exploration activities in
the Chukchi Sea and adjacent western coast of Alaska. We are proposing
that this rule be effective for 5 years from date of issuance. We
propose a finding that the total expected takings of walruses and polar
bears during oil and gas industry exploration activities will have a
negligible impact on these species and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of these species for subsistence use
by Alaska Natives. The regulations that we propose to issue include
permissible methods of nonlethal taking, measures to ensure the least
practicable adverse impact on the species and the availability of these
species for subsistence uses, and requirements for monitoring and
reporting. If the proposed regulations are issued, we can issue Letters
of Authorization to conduct activities under the provisions of these
regulations when requested by citizens of the United States. We are
seeking public comments on this proposed rule.
In addition, the Service proposes to issue authorizations to take
small numbers of marine mammals by harassment incidental to conducting
exploration activities during the 2007 open-water season for oil and
gas operators (Incidental Harassment Authorization). These activities
will be carried out from approximately July 1 through November 30,
2007. The authorizations we propose to issue will also include
permissible methods of nonlethal taking, measures to ensure the least
practicable adverse impact on the species and the availability of these
species for subsistence uses, and requirements for monitoring and
reporting. We are seeking public comments on this proposal.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule, the proposed issuance of
incidental harassment authorization, and the draft Environmental
Assessment, must be received by July 2, 2007. Comments on the
information collection requirements must be submitted on or before July
31, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods for
the proposed rule, identified by RIN 1018-AU41, or for the incidental
harassment authorization:
Mail: Craig Perham, Office of Marine Mammals Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK
99503.
Fax: 907-786-3816.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Marine Mammals
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503.
E-mail: [email protected]. Please submit Internet
comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: RIN 1018-AU41'' in
the subject line and your name and return address in your Internet
message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we
have received your Internet message, contact us directly at U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Office of Marine Mammals Management, 907-786-3810
or 1-800-362-5148.
Comments on the proposed rule, identified by RIN 1018-AU41, may
also be submitted by the following method:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Please indicate to which action, RIN 1018-AU41 or incidental
harassment authorization, your comments apply.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Perham, Office of Marine Mammals
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone 907-786-3810 or 1-800-362-5148, or e-
mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
through the Director of the Service (we) the authority to allow the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals, in response to requests by U.S. citizens (you) [as defined in
50 CFR 18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) in a specified geographic region. According to the MMPA, we
shall allow this incidental taking if (1) we make a finding that the
total of such taking for the 5-year regulatory period will have no more
than a negligible impact on these species and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species for
taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives, and (2) we issue
regulations that set forth (i) permissible methods of taking, (ii)
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species
and their habitat and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses, and (iii) requirements for monitoring and reporting.
If regulations allowing such incidental taking are issued, we can issue
Letters of Authorization (LOA) to conduct activities under the
provisions of these regulations when requested by citizens of the
United States.
The term ``take,'' as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any
marine mammal. Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, 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 calls this Level
A harassment) ``or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' (the MMPA calls this Level B
harassment).
The terms ``small numbers,'' ``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. ``Small numbers'' is defined as ``a
portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a
negligible impact on that species or stock.'' ``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
[[Page 30671]]
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.''
Industry conducts activities such as oil and gas exploration in
marine mammal habitat that could result in the taking of marine
mammals. Although Industry is under no legal requirement to obtain
incidental take authorization, since 1991, Industry has requested, and
we have issued regulations for, incidental take authorization for
conducting activities in areas of walrus and polar bear habitat.
Incidental take regulations for walruses and polar bears in the Chukchi
Sea were issued previously for the period 1991-1996 (56 FR 27443; June
14, 1991). In the Beaufort Sea, incidental take regulations have been
issued previously from 1993 to present: November 16, 1993 (58 FR
60402); August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42805); January 28, 1999 (64 FR 4328);
February 3, 2000 (65 FR 5275); March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16828); November
28, 2003 (68 FR 66744); and August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926).
Summary of Current Request
On August 5, 2005, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), on
behalf of its members, (Agrium Kenai Nitrogen Operations, Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, BP
Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Chevron, Eni Petroleum, ExxonMobil
Production Company, Flint Hills Resources, Alaska, Forest Oil
Corporation, Marathon Oil Company, Petro-Canada (Alaska) Inc., Petro
Star Inc., Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Inc., Shell Exploration &
Production Company, Tesoro Alaska Company, and XTO Energy, Inc.)
requested that the Service promulgate regulations to allow the
nonlethal, incidental take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears
in the Chukchi Sea for a period of 5 years. The Service requested
additional information from AOGA regarding the nature, scope, and
location of proposed activities for its analysis of potential impacts
on walruses, polar bears, and subsistence harvests of these resources.
On November 22, 2006, Shell Offshore Inc. (SOI) provided an addendum to
the AOGA petition describing SOI's projected activities for 2007-2012.
On January 2, 2007, AOGA, on behalf of its members, also provided
an addendum to its original petition referencing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement prepared by the MMS for the Chukchi Sea Planning Area:
Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the
Chukchi Sea (Chukchi Sea DEIS). The Chukchi Sea DEIS includes estimates
of all reasonably foreseeable oil and gas activities associated with
proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sales in the Chukchi Sea
Planning Area. The AOGA petition requested that the Service consider
activities described in the Chukchi Sea DEIS for the period 2007-2012.
On January 2, 2007, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI), also provided
an addendum to the original AOGA petition describing CPAI's projected
activities from 2007-2012. The petition and addendums are available at:
(Alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm). The Chukchi Sea DEIS,
referenced in the AOGA petition, is available at: http://www.mms.gov/alaska (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2006-060).
The combined requests are for regulations to allow the incidental,
nonlethal take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears in
association with oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent
coastline projected out to the year 2012. The information provided by
the petitioners indicates that projected oil and gas activities over
this timeframe will be limited to offshore and onshore exploration
activities. Development and production activities were not considered
in the requests. The petitioners have also specifically requested that
these regulations be issued for nonlethal take. Industry has indicated
that, through implementation of the mitigation measures, it is
confident a lethal take will not occur.
Prior to issuing regulations at 50 CFR part 18, subpart I in
response to this request, we must evaluate the level of industrial
activities, their associated potential impacts to walruses and polar
bears, and their effects on the availability of these species for
subsistence use. All projected exploration activities described by SOI,
CPAI, and AOGA (on behalf of its members) in their petitions, as well
as projections of reasonably foreseeable activities for the period
2007-2012 described in the Chukchi Sea DEIS were considered in our
analysis. The activities and geographic region specified in the
requests, and considered in these regulations are described in the
ensuing sections titled ``Description of Geographic Region'' and
``Description of Activities.''
This proposed rule also serves as the proposed incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
If this proposed rule is finalized, incidental take of small numbers of
polar bears and walrus resulting from oil and gas exploration
activities in the Chukchi Sea will be authorized under LOAs issued
pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. However, operators are
proposing to begin oil and gas exploration activities in July of 2007,
which will likely be before the Service makes a final determination
under the section 101(a)(5)(A) regulatory process. Therefore, this
proposed rule also serves as the proposed IHA that, if finalized, will
authorize the incidental take by harassment of small numbers of
walruses and polar bears from oil and gas exploration activities in the
Chukchi Sea during the 2007 exploration season.
The proposed rule can serve as both the proposed rule under section
101(a)(5)(A) and the proposed IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) because
the standards are the same and the procedures are compatible.
Incidental take authorization is available under both provisions if the
Service finds that the anticipated take will have a negligible impact
on the species or stock and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. Both
types of authorization would include permissible methods of taking and
other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or
stock and its habitat and on the availability of the species or stock
for taking for subsistence uses, any measures necessary to ensure no
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock
for taking for subsistence uses, and requirements for monitoring and
reporting of any taking that does occur.
The differences between the two provisions are procedural. A final
IHA would be issued without further notice in the Federal Register,
following consideration of all comments received during the public
comment period, if the Service finds that the anticipated level of take
meets the statutory standards. An IHA can only be issued for up to one
year, compared to the five-year period of the regulatory process. Also,
an IHA can only be issued if the Service finds that no lethal take is
likely to occur as a result of the anticipated oil and gas exploration
activities. Here the Service would be issuing an IHA for the 2007
exploration season. If a final rule is published in the Federal
Register finding that the anticipated take during the full five-year
period meets the statutory standards, Letters of Authorization will
replace the one-year IHA that will be issued to operators if the
Service makes final determinations that the take that is anticipated to
result from the 2007 activities meets the statutory standards.
[[Page 30672]]
The Description of Activities section of the proposed rule
describes the oil and gas exploration activities that will occur during
the 2007 season, as well as during the consecutive years of the
regulatory period. The Description of Geographic Region section
describes the geographic area in which exploration activities will be
conducted in 2007, as well as during the other years of the regulatory
period. The Mitigation Measures for Oil and Gas Exploration Activities
section describes the mitigating measures and monitoring and reporting
requirements that will be required in 2007 as conditions of the IHA.
The potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears section, the Potential Effects of Oil and Gas
Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar
Bears section, and the Summary of Take Estimated for Pacific Walruses
and Polar Bears section analyze the type and level of take of polar
bears and walrus that is anticipated to occur during the 2007
exploration season, as well as during the other years of the regulatory
period. The public comment period announced with this proposed rule
also serves as the public comment period for the proposed IHA. If the
Service makes a final determination that the anticipated level of take
meets the standards under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, it will
issue an IHA with all required conditions to oil and gas operators for
the 2007 exploration season no later than 45 days after the close of
the comment period.
Description of Regulations
The proposed regulations are limited to the nonlethal, incidental
take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears associated with oil
and gas exploration activities (geophysical seismic surveys,
exploratory drilling, and associated support activities) in the Chukchi
Sea and adjacent coast of Alaska and would be effective for a period of
up to 5 years from the date of issuance. The geographic region, as
outlined in the ``Description of Geographic Region,'' and the type of
industrial activities, as outlined in the ``Description of Activities''
section were assessed in these regulations. No development or
production activities are anticipated over this timeframe, or
considered in the proposed regulations.
The total estimated level of activity covered by these regulations,
as outlined in the ``Description of Activities'' section, was based on
all projected exploration activities described by SOI, CPAI, and AOGA
(on behalf of its members) in their petitions, as well as projections
of reasonably foreseeable activities for the period 2007-2012 described
in the Chukchi Sea DEIS referenced by the petitioners. If the level of
activity is more than anticipated, such as additional support vessels
or aircraft, more drilling units, or more miles of geophysical surveys,
the Service would reevaluate its findings to determine if they continue
to be appropriate.
It is important to note that these regulations would not authorize,
or ``permit,'' the actual activities associated with oil and gas
exploration in the Chukchi Sea. Rather, they would authorize the
nonlethal incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of walruses
and polar bears associated with those activities based on standards set
forth in the MMPA. The petition does not request promulgation of
regulations for the incidental taking from development or production
activities in the Chukchi Sea. The MMS, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are responsible for
permitting activities associated with oil and gas activities in Federal
waters and on Federal lands. The State of Alaska is responsible for
permitting activities on State lands and in State waters.
The regulations that we propose to issue include permissible
methods of nonlethal taking, measures to ensure the least practicable
adverse impact on the species and the availability of these species for
subsistence uses, and requirements for monitoring and reporting. If we
issue final nonlethal incidental take regulations, persons seeking
taking authorization for particular projects must apply for an LOA to
cover nonlethal take associated with specified exploration activities
pursuant to the regulations. Each group or individual conducting an oil
and gas industry-related activity within the area covered by these
regulations may request an LOA.
A separate LOA will be required for each geophysical survey or
seismic activity and each exploratory drilling operation. Applications
for LOAs must be received at least 90 days before the activity is to
begin. Applicants for LOAs must submit an Operations Plan for the
activity, a polar bear interaction plan, and a site-specific marine
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor the effects of
authorized activities on walruses and polar bears. A report on all
exploration and monitoring activities must be submitted to the Service
within 90 days after the completed activity. Details of monitoring and
reporting requirements are further described in ``Potential Effects of
Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.''
Depending upon the nature, timing, and location of a proposed
activity, applicants may also be required to develop a Plan of
Cooperation (POC) with potentially affected subsistence communities to
minimize interactions with subsistence users. The POC is further
described in ``Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on
Subsistence Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.''
Each request for an LOA will be evaluated based upon the specific
activity and the specific location, and each authorization will
identify allowable methods or conditions specific to that activity and
location. For example, we will consider seasonal or location-specific
restrictions to limit interactions between exploration activities and
walrus aggregations, or interference with subsistence hunting
activities. Individual LOAs will include monitoring and reporting
requirements specific to each activity, as well as any measures
necessary for mitigating impacts to these species and the subsistence
use of these species. The granting of each LOA will be based on a
determination that the total level of taking by all applicants in any
one year is consistent with the estimated level used to make a finding
of negligible impact and a finding of no unmitigable adverse impacts on
the availability of the species or the stock for subsistence uses.
Notice of issuance of LOAs will be published in the Federal Register.
More information on applying for and receiving an LOA can be found at
50 CFR 18.27(f).
Description of Geographic Region
These regulations would allow Industry to incidentally take small
numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears within the same area,
hereafter referred to as the Chukchi Sea Region (Figure 1). The
geographic area covered by the request is the continental shelf of the
Arctic Ocean adjacent to western Alaska. This area includes the waters
(State of Alaska and OCS waters) and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, which
encompasses all waters north and west of Point Hope (68[deg]20'20'' N,
-166 [deg]50'40 W, BGN 1947) to the U.S.-Russia Convention Line of
1867, west of a north-south line through Point Barrow (71[deg]23'29''
N, -156 [deg]28'30 W, BGN 1944), and up to 200 miles north of Point
Barrow. The region also includes the terrestrial coastal land 25 miles
inland between the western boundary of the south National Petroleum
Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A) near Icy Cape
[[Page 30673]]
(70[deg]20'00'', -148[deg]12'00) and the north-south line from Point
Barrow. The geographic region encompasses an area of approximately
5,850 square miles. This terrestrial region encompasses a portion of
the Northwest and South Planning Areas of the NPR-A. The north-south
line at Point Barrow is the western border of the geographic region in
the Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations (71 FR 43926; August 2,
2006).
Description of Activities
This section reviews the types and scale of oil and gas activities
projected to occur in the Chukchi Sea Region over the specified time
period (2007-2012). This information is based upon information provided
by the petitioners and referenced in the Chukchi Sea DEIS. The Service
has used these estimated levels of activity as a basis for its
findings. If requests for LOAs exceed the highest estimated level of
activity, the Service would reevaluate its findings to determine if
they continue to be appropriate before further LOAs are issued.
Specific locations where oil and gas activity may occur over the
proposed regulatory period are largely speculative, but are within the
geographic region identified and analyzed in these regulations. They
will be determined, in part, on the outcome of future Federal and State
oil and gas lease sales. The specific dates and durations of the
individual operations and their geographic locations will be provided
to the Service in detail when requests for LOAs are submitted.
Oil and gas activities anticipated and considered in our analysis
of proposed incidental take regulations include: (1) Marine-streamer 3D
and 2D seismic surveys; (2) high-resolution site-clearance surveys; (3)
offshore exploration drilling; and (4) onshore seismic exploration and
drilling.
Marine-Streamer 3D and 2D Seismic Surveys
Marine seismic surveys are conducted to locate geological
structures potentially capable of containing petroleum accumulations.
Air guns are the typical acoustic (sound) source for 2-dimensional and
3-dimensional (2D and 3D) seismic surveys. An outgoing sound signal is
created by venting high-pressure air from the air guns into the water
to produce an air-filled cavity (bubble) that expands and contracts.
The size of individual air guns can range from tens to several hundred
cubic inches (in3). A group of air guns is usually deployed
in an array to produce a downward-focused sound signal. Air gun array
volumes for both 2D and 3D seismic surveys are expected to range from
1,800-6,000 in3. The air guns are fired at short, regular
intervals, so the arrays emit pulsed rather than continuous sound.
While most of the energy is focused downward and the short duration of
each pulse limits the total energy into the water column, the sound can
propagate horizontally for several kilometers.
A 3D source array typically consists of two to three sub-arrays of
six to nine air guns each, and is about 12.5-18 meters (m) long and 16-
36 m wide. The size of the source-array can vary during the seismic
survey to optimize the resolution of the geophysical data collected at
any particular site. Vessels usually tow up to three source arrays,
depending on the survey-design specifications. Most 3D operations use a
single source vessel; however, in a few instances, more than one source
vessel may be used. The sound-source level (zero-to-peak) associated
with typical 3D seismic surveys ranges between 233 and 240 decibels at
1 meter (re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m).
The vessels conducting 3D surveys are generally 70-90 m long.
Surveys are typically acquired at a vessel speed of approximately 4.5
knots (k) (8.3 km/hour). Source arrays are activated approximately
every 10-15 seconds, depending on vessel speed. The timing between
outgoing sound signals can vary for different surveys to achieve the
desired ``shot point'' spacing to meet the geological objectives of the
survey; typical spacing is either 25 or 37.5 m. The receiving arrays
could include multiple (4-16) streamer-receiver cables towed behind the
source array. Streamer cables contain numerous hydrophone elements at
fixed distances within each cable. Each streamer can be 3-8 km long
with an overall array width of up to 1,500 m between outermost streamer
cables. Biodegradable liquid paraffin is used to fill the streamer and
provide buoyancy. Solid/gel streamer cables also are used. The wide
extent of this towed equipment limits both the turning speed and the
area a vessel covers with a single pass over a geologic target. It is,
therefore, common practice to acquire data using an offset racetrack
pattern. Adjacent transit lines for a survey generally are spaced
several hundred meters apart and are parallel to each other across the
survey area. Seismic surveys are conducted day and night when ocean
conditions are favorable, and one survey effort may continue for weeks
or months, depending on the size of the survey. Data-acquisition is
affected by the arrays towed by the survey vessel and weather
conditions. Typically, data are only collected between 25 and 30
percent of the time (or 6-8 hours a day) because of equipment or
weather problems. In addition to downtime due to weather, sea
conditions, turning between lines, and equipment maintenance, surveys
could be suspended to avoid interactions with biological resources. The
MMS estimates that individual surveys could last between 20-30 days
(with downtime) to cover a 200 square mile (mi2) area.
Marine-streamer 2D surveys use similar geophysical-survey
techniques as 3D surveys, but both the mode of operation and general
vessel type used are different. The 2D surveys provide a less-detailed
subsurface image because the survey lines are spaced farther apart, but
they cover wider areas to image geologic structure on more of a
regional basis. Large prospects are easily identified on 2D seismic
data, but detailed images of the prospective areas within a large
prospect can only be seen using 3D data. The 2D seismic-survey vessels
generally are smaller than 3D-survey vessels, although larger 3D-survey
vessels are also capable of conducting 2D surveys. The 2D source array
typically consists of three or more sub-arrays of six to eight air gun
sources each. The sound-source level (zero-to-peak) associated with 2D
marine seismic surveys are the same as 3D marine seismic surveys (233-
240 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m). Typically, a single hydrophone streamer
cable approximately 8-12 km long is towed behind the survey vessel. The
2D surveys acquire data along single track lines that are spread more
widely apart (usually several miles) than are track lines for 3D
surveys (usually several hundred meters).
Both 3D and 2D marine-streamer surveys require a largely ice-free
environment to allow effective operation and maneuvering of the air gun
arrays and long streamers. In the Chukchi Sea Region, the timing and
areas of the surveys will be dictated by ice conditions. The data-
acquisition season in the Chukchi Sea could start sometime in July and
end sometime in early November. Even during the short summer season,
there are periodic incursions of sea ice, so there is no guarantee that
any given location will be ice free throughout the survey.
Marine seismic-exploration work is expected to occur in the Chukchi
Sea Region in the summer of 2007 in anticipation of OCS lease sale 193.
This work is likely to include 3D seismic surveys, but will not include
exploration drilling. Approximately 100,000 line-miles of 2D seismic
surveys already have been collected in the Chukchi Sea program area, so
the
[[Page 30674]]
MMS assumes that additional geophysical surveys will be primarily 3D
surveys focusing on specific leasing targets. The 3D surveys are likely
to continue during the early phase of exploration when wells are
drilled; however, the number of surveys is expected to decrease over
time as data is collected over the prime prospects and these prospects
are tested by drilling.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, and estimates
prepared by the MMS in the Chukchi Sea DEIS, the Service estimates
that, in any given year during the specified timeframe (2007-2012), up
to four seismic survey vessels could be operating simultaneously in the
Chukchi Sea Region during the open water season. Each seismic vessel is
expected to collect between 3,200-14,500 linear kilometers of seismic
survey data. Seismic surveys are expected to occur in open water
conditions between July 1 and November 30 each year. We estimate that
each seismic survey vessel will be accompanied or serviced by 1-3
support vessels. Helicopters may also be used, when available, for
vessel support and crew changes.
High-Resolution Site-Clearance Surveys
Based on mapping of the subsurface structures using 2D and 3D
seismic data, several well locations may be proposed. Prior to drilling
deep test wells, high-resolution site clearance seismic surveys and
geotechnical studies will be necessary to examine the proposed
exploration drilling locations for geologic hazards, archeological
features, and biological populations. Site clearance and studies
required for exploration will be conducted during the open water season
before a drill rig is mobilized to the site. A typical operation
consists of a vessel towing an acoustic source (air gun) about 25 m
behind the ship and a 600-m streamer cable with a tail buoy. The source
array usually is a single array composed of one or more air guns. A 2D
high-resolution site-clearance survey usually has a single air gun,
while a 3D high-resolution site survey usually tows an array of air
guns. The ships travel at 3-3.5 knots (5.6-6.5 km/hour), and the source
is activated every 7-8 seconds (or about every 12.5 m). All vessel
operations are designed to be ultra-quiet, as the higher frequencies
used in high-resolution work are easily masked by the vessel noise.
Typical surveys cover one OCS block at a time. MMS regulations require
information be gathered on a 300 by 900 m grid, which amounts to about
129 line kilometers of data per lease block. If there is a high
probability of archeological resources, the north-south lines are 50 m
apart and the 900 m remains the same. Including line turns, the time to
survey a lease block is approximately 36 hours. Air gun volumes for
high-resolution surveys typically are 90-150 in3, and the
output of a 90-in3 air gun ranges from 229-233 dB high-
resolution re 1 [mu]Pa at 1m. Air gun pressures typically are 2,000 psi
(pounds per square inch), although they can be used at 3,000 psi for
higher signal strength to collect data from deep in the subsurface.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, and estimates
prepared by the MMS in the Chukchi Sea DEIS, we estimate that during
the specified timeframe (2007-2012), as many as six high-resolution
site surveys may be carried out in any given year.
Offshore Drilling Operations
Considering water depth and the remoteness of this area, drilling
operations are most likely to employ drill-ships with ice-breaker
support vessels. Water depths greater than 100 feet and possible pack-
ice incursions during the open-water season will preclude the use of
bottom-founded platforms as exploration drilling rigs. Using drill-
ships allows the operator to temporarily move off the drill-site if sea
or ice conditions require it, and the suspended well is controlled by
blowout-prevention equipment installed on wellheads on the seabed.
Drilling operations are expected to range between 30 and 90 days at
different well sites, depending on the depth to the target formation,
difficulties during drilling, and logging/testing operations. Drill-
ships operate only during the open-water season, and drifting ice can
prevent their operation.
A drill-ship is secured over the drill-site by deploying anchors on
as many as ten to twelve mooring lines. The drill pipe is encased in a
riser that compensates for the vertical wave motion. The blowout
preventer (BOP) is typically located at the seabed in a hole dug below
the ice-scour depth. BOP placement is an important safety feature
enabling the drill-ship to shut down operations and get underway
rapidly without exposing the well. One or more ice management vessels
(icebreakers) generally support drill-ships to ensure ice does not
encroach on operations. A barge and tug typically accompany the vessels
to provide a standby safety vessel, oil spill response capabilities,
and refueling support. Most supplies (including fuel) necessary to
complete drilling activities are stored on the drill-ship and support
vessels. Helicopter servicing of drill-ships can occur as frequently as
1-2 times/day. The abandonment phase is initiated if exploratory wells
are not successful. In a typical situation, wells are permanently
plugged (with cement) and wellhead equipment removed. The seafloor site
is restored to some practicable, pre-exploration condition. Post-
abandonment surveys are conducted to confirm that no debris remains
following abandonment or those materials remain at the lease tract. The
casings for delineation wells are either cut mechanically or with
explosives during the process of well abandonment. The MMS estimates
that exploration wells will average 8,000 ft, will use approximately
475 tons (ton = 2,000 pounds) of dry mud, and produce 600 tons of dry
rock cuttings. Considering the cost of synthetic drilling fluids now
commonly used, the MMS assumes that most of the drilling mud will be
reconditioned and reused. All of the rock cuttings will be discharged
at the exploration site.
Considering the relatively short open-water season in the Chukchi
Sea (July-November), the MMS estimates that up to four wells could be
started by one rig each drilling season. However, it is more likely
that only one to two wells could be drilled, tested, and abandoned by
one drill ship in any given season, leaving work on the other wells to
the next summer season. A total of 5 exploration wells have been
drilled on the Chukchi shelf, and the MMS estimates that 7-14
additional wells will be needed to discover and delineate a commercial
field.
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, and estimates
prepared by the MMS in the Chukchi Sea DEIS, we estimate that as many
as five drill-ships could be operating in the Chukchi Sea Region in any
given year during the specified timeframe (2007-2012). Each drill-ship
is expected to drill up to four exploratory or delineation wells per
season. Each drill-ship is likely to be supported by 1-2 ice breakers,
a barge and tug, 1-2 helicopter flights per day, and 1-2 supply ships
per week. The operating season is expected to be limited to the open-
water season July 1-November 30.
Onshore Seismic Exploration and Drilling
The CPAI petition also describes conducting onshore seismic
exploration and drilling over the next five years, including
geotechnical site investigations, vibroseis, construction of ice pads,
roads, and islands, and exploratory drilling.
Geotechnical site investigations include shallow cores and soil
borings
[[Page 30675]]
to investigate soil conditions and stratigraphy. Geotechnical
properties at select points may be integrated with seismic data to
develop a regional model for predicting soil conditions in areas of
interest.
Vibroseis seismic operations are conducted both onshore and on
nearshore ice using large trucks with vibrators that systematically put
variable frequency energy into the earth. A minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) of
sea ice is required to support heavy vehicles used to transport
equipment offshore for exploration activities. These ice conditions
generally exist from 1 January until 31 May. The exploration techniques
are most commonly used on landfast ice, but they can be used in areas
of stable offshore pack ice. Several vehicles are normally associated
with a typical vibroseis operation. One or two vehicles with survey
crews move ahead of the operation and mark the source receiver points.
Occasionally, bulldozers are needed to build snow ramps on the steep
terrain or to smooth offshore rough ice within the site.
A typical wintertime exploration seismic crew consists of 40-140
personnel. Roughly 75 percent of the personnel routinely work on the
active seismic crew, with approximately 50 percent of those working in
vehicles and the remainder outside laying and retrieving geophones and
cables.
With the vibroseis technique, activity on the surveyed seismic line
begins with the placement of sensors. All sensors are connected to the
recording vehicle by multi-pair cable sections. The vibrators move to
the beginning of the line, and recording begins. The vibrators move
along a source line, which is at some angle to the sensor line. The
vibrators begin vibrating in synchrony via a simultaneous radio signal
to all vehicles. In a typical survey, each vibrator will vibrate four
times at each location. The entire formation of vibrators subsequently
moves forward to the next energy input point (67 m (220 ft) in most
applications) and repeats the process. In a typical 16- to 18-hour day,
a survey will complete 6 to 16 linear km (4-10 mi) in a 2D seismic
operation and 24 to 64 linear km (15-40 mi) in a 3D seismic operation.
CPAI anticipates conducting between one and five vibroseis seismic
programs onshore within the northwest NPR-A over the next 5 years.
CPAI also anticipates developing vertical seismic profiles (VSPs)
to calibrate seismic and well data. VSP operations are usually staffed
by less than eight people. Four or five of the operators remain in the
vehicles (vibrators) within 1.6 to 3.2 km (1-2 mi) of the rig, while
the others are located at the rig.
CPAI proposes to drill up to three onshore exploration wells on
private lands south of Barrow near the North Slope Boroughs Walakpa gas
field in the winter of 2007. It is estimated that another 3 to 5 wells
could be drilled in this area within the next 5 years. In support of
these activities, CPA estimates that the following associated
infrastructure would be required: 20-100 miles of ice roads; 20-300
miles of rolligon trails; 1 to 2 airfields of approximately 5,000 feet
in size; storage of rigs and/or support equipment in Barrow; and
barging of equipment to and from Barrow from existing facilities.
On Federal lands, CPAI estimates drilling 3 to 6 onshore wells
within the next 5 years. Drilling will likely include both well testing
and VSPs. Three onshore wells are proposed for 2007. Drilling
operations will require an estimated 20 to 100 miles of ice roads, 20
to 300 miles of rolligon trails, 1 to 4 airfields approximately 5,000
ft in length on lakes or tundra, rig storage on gravel, possibly at new
sites in the Northwest NPR-A, 1 to 5 camps, and 1 to 3 rigs operating
in a given year.
Mitigation Measures for Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the
Chukchi Sea
Measures to mitigate potential effects of oil and gas exploration
activities on marine mammal resources and subsistence use of those
resources have been identified and developed through previous MMS lease
sale National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and analysis
processes. The Chukchi Sea DEIS (http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/EIS%20EA/draft_arctic_peis/draft_peis.htm) identifies several
existing measures designed to mitigate potential effects of oil and gas
exploration activities on marine mammal resources and subsistence use
of those resources (II.B.3.; II-B.5-24). All plans for OCS exploration
activities will go through an MMS review and approval to ensure
compliance with established laws and regulations. Operational
compliance is enforced through the MMS on-site inspection program. The
following MMS lease sale stipulations and mitigation measures will be
applied to all exploration activities in the Chukchi Lease Sale
Planning Area and the geographic region of the incidental take
regulations. The Service has incorporated these MMS Lease sale
mitigation measures into their analysis of impacts to Pacific walrus
and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea.
MMS lease sale stipulations that will help minimize Industry
impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears include:
Pre-Booming Requirements for Fuel Transfers
Fuel transfers of 100 barrels or more will require pre-booming of
fuel barges. A fuel barge must be surrounded by an oil-spill-
containment boom during the entire transfer operation to help reduce
any adverse effects from a fuel spill. Pre-booming requirements are
intended to lower the potential effects to water quality, lower
trophic-level organisms, marine mammals, subsistence resources and
hunting, and sociocultural systems by providing additional protection
from potential fuel spills.
By containing any spill within the boom area, this stipulation will
reduce the risk of fuel spills contacting walruses and polar bears, and
the risk that harvested animals may become tainted from a potential
spill.
Site-Specific Monitoring Program for Marine Mammal Subsistence
Resources
A lessee proposing to conduct exploration operations within
traditional subsistence use areas will be required to conduct a site-
specific monitoring program designed to assess when walruses and polar
bears are present in the vicinity of lease operations and the extent of
behavioral effects on these marine mammals due to their operations.
This stipulation applies specifically to the communities of Barrow,
Wainwright, Point Lay, and Point Hope.
Site-specific monitoring programs will provide information about
the seasonal distributions of walruses and polar bears. The information
can be used to evaluate the threat of harm to the species and provides
immediate information about their activities, and their response to
specific events. This stipulation is expected to reduce the potential
effects of exploration activities on walruses, polar bears, and the
subsistence use of these resources. This stipulation also contributes
incremental and important information to ongoing walrus and polar bear
research and monitoring efforts.
Conflict Avoidance Mechanisms To Protect Subsistence-Harvesting
Activities
Through consultation with potentially affected communities, the
lessee shall make every reasonable effort to assure that their proposed
activities are compatible with marine mammal subsistence hunting
activities and will not result in unreasonable interference
[[Page 30676]]
with subsistence harvests. In the event that no agreement is reached
between the parties, the lessee, the appropriate management agencies
and co-management organizations, and any communities that could be
directly affected by the proposed activity may request that the MMS
assemble a group consisting of representatives from the parties
specifically to address the conflict and attempt to resolve the issues
before the MMS makes a final determination on the adequacy of the
measures taken to prevent unreasonable conflicts with subsistence
harvests.
This lease stipulation will help reduce potential conflicts between
subsistence hunters and proposed oil and gas exploration activities.
This stipulation will help reduce noise and disturbance conflicts from
oil and gas operations during specific periods, such as peak hunting
seasons. It requires that the lessee meet with local communities and
subsistence groups to resolve potential conflicts. The consultations
required by this stipulation ensure that the lessee, including
contractors, consult and coordinate both the timing and sighting of
events with subsistence users. This stipulation has proven to be
effective in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area in mitigating offshore
exploration activities through the development of annual agreements
between the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and participating oil
companies.
Measures To Mitigate Seismic-Surveying Effects
The measures summarized below are based on the protective measures
in MMS' most recent marine seismic survey exploration permits and the
recently completed Programmatic Environmental Assessment of Arctic
Ocean Outer Continental Shelf Seismic Surveys--2006 (http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/pea_be.htm). As stated in the MMS Programmatic
Environmental Assessment, these protective measures would be
incorporated in all MMS-permitted seismic activities.
1. Spacing of Seismic Surveys--Operators must maintain a minimum
spacing of 15 miles between the seismic-source vessels for separate
simultaneous operations.
2. Exclusion Zone--A 180/190-decibel (dB) isopleth-exclusion zone
(also called a safety zone) from the seismic-survey-sound source shall
be free of marine mammals, including walruses and polar bears, before
the survey can begin and must remain free of mammals during the survey.
The purpose of the exclusion zone is to protect marine mammals from
Level A harassment. The 180-dB (Level A harassment injury) applies to
cetaceans and walruses, and the 190-dB (Level A harassment-injury)
applies to pinnipeds other than walruses and polar bears.
3. Monitoring of the Exclusion Zone--Trained marine mammal
observers (MMOs) shall monitor the area around the survey for the
presence of marine mammals to maintain a marine mammal-free exclusion
zone and monitor for avoidance or take behaviors. Visual observers
monitor the exclusion zone to ensure that marine mammals do not enter
the exclusion zone for at least 30 minutes prior to ramp up, during the
conduct of the survey, or before resuming seismic survey work after a
shut down.
Shut Down--The survey shall be suspended until the exclusion/safety
zone is free of marine mammals. All observers shall have the authority
to, and shall instruct the vessel operators to immediately stop or de-
energize the airgun array whenever a marine mammal is seen within the
zone. If the airgun array is completely shut-down for any reason during
nighttime or poor sighting conditions, it shall not be re-energized
until daylight or whenever sighting conditions allow for the zone to be
effectively monitored from the source vessel and/or through other
passive acoustic, aerial, or vessel-based monitoring.
Ramp Up--Ramp up is the gradual introduction of sound from airguns
to deter marine mammals from potentially damaging sound intensities and
from approaching the specified zone. This technique involves the
gradual increase (usually 5-6 dB per 5-minute increment) in emitted
sound levels, beginning with firing a single airgun and gradually
adding airguns over a period of at least 20-40 minutes, until the
desired operating level of the full array is obtained. Ramp-up
procedures may begin after observers ensure the absence of marine
mammals for at least 30 minutes. Ramp up procedures shall not be
initiated at night or when monitoring the zone is not possible. A
single airgun operating at a minimum source level can be maintained for
routine activities, such as making a turn between line transects, for
maintenance needs or during periods of impaired visibility (e.g.,
darkness, fog, high sea states), and does not require a 30-minute
clearance of the zone before the airgun array is again ramped up to
full output.
Field Verification--Before conducting the survey, the operator
shall verify the radii of the exclusion/safety zones within real-time
conditions in the field. This provides for more accurate radii rather
than relying on modeling techniques before entering the field. Field-
verification techniques must use valid techniques for determining
propagation loss. When moving a seismic-survey operation into a new
area, the operator shall verify the new radii of the zones by applying
a sound-propagation series.
4. Monitoring of the Seismic-Survey Area--Aerial-monitoring surveys
or an equivalent monitoring program acceptable to the Service will be
required through the LOA authorization process. Field verification of
the effectiveness of any monitoring techniques may be required by the
Service.
5. Reporting Requirements--Reporting requirements provide
regulatory agencies with specific information on the monitoring
techniques to be implemented and how any observed impacts to marine
mammals will be recorded. In addition, operators must report
immediately any shutdowns due to a marine mammal entering the exclusion
zones and provide the regulating agencies with information on the
frequency of occurrence and the types and behaviors of marine mammals
(if possible to ascertain) entering the exclusion zones.
6. Temporal/Spatial/Operational Restrictions--Seismic-survey and
associated support vessels shall observe a 0.5-mile (~800-meter) safety
radius around walruses hauled-out onto land or ice. Aircraft shall be
required to maintain a 1,000-foot minimum altitude within 0.5 miles of
hauled-out walruses.
7. Seismic-survey operators shall notify MMS in the event of any
loss of cable, streamer, or other equipment that could pose a danger to
marine mammals.
These seismic mitigation measures will help reduce the potential
for Level A Harassment of walruses and polar bears during seismic
operations. The spatial separation of seismic operations will also
reduce potential cumulative effects of simultaneous operations. The
monitoring and reporting requirements will provide location-specific
information about the seasonal distributions of walruses and polar
bears. The additional information can be used to evaluate the future
threat of harm to the species and also provides immediate information
about their activities, and their response to specific events.
Biological Information
Pacific Walruses
1. Stock Definition and Range
Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) are represented by a
single stock of animals that inhabit the shallow
[[Page 30677]]
continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi seas. The population
ranges across the international boundaries of the United States and
Russia, and both nations share common interests with respect to the
conservation and management of this species.
Several decades of intense commercial exploitation in the late
1800s and early 1900s left the population severely depleted. The
population is believed to have increased substantially in size and
range during the 1960s-1980s due to hunting restrictions enacted in the
United States and Russia that reduced the size of the commercial
harvest and provided protection to female walruses and calves.
Information concerning population size and trend after 1985 is less
certain. An aerial survey flown in 1990 produced a population estimate
of 201,039 animals; however, large confidence intervals associated with
that estimate precluded any conclusions concerning population trend.
The current size and trend of the Pacific walrus population are
unknown. Projected ecosystem changes across the Arctic further
underscore the need for detailed population studies from which sound
management decisions can be made.
The distribution of Pacific walruses varies markedly with the
seasons. During the late winter breeding season, walruses are found in
areas of the Bering Sea where open leads, polynas, or areas of broken
pack-ice occur. Significant winter concentrations are normally found in
the Gulf of Anadyr, the St. Lawrence Island Polyna, and in an area
south of Nunivak Island. In the spring and early summer, most of the
population follows the retreating pack-ice northward into the Chukchi
Sea; however, several thousand animals, primarily adult males, remain
in the Bering Sea, utilizing coastal haulouts during the ice-free
season. During the summer months, walruses are widely distributed
across the shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea.
Significant summer concentrations are normally found in the
unconsolidated pack-ice west of Point Barrow, and along the northern
coastline of Chukotka in the vicinity of Wrangel Island. As the ice
edge advances southward in the fall, walruses reverse their migration
and re-group on the Bering Sea pack-ice.
2. Habitat
Walruses rely on floating pack-ice as a substrate for resting and
giving birth. Walruses generally require ice thicknesses of 50
centimeters (cm) or more to support their weight. Although walruses can
break through ice up to 20 cm thick, they usually occupy areas with
natural openings and are not found in areas of extensive, unbroken ice.
Thus, their concentrations in winter tend to be in areas of divergent
ice flow or along the margins of persistent polynas. Concentrations in
summer tend to be in areas of unconsolidated pack-ice, usually within
100 km of the leading edge of the ice pack. When suitable pack-ice is
not available, walruses haul out to rest on land. Isolated sites, such
as barrier islands, points, and headlands, are most frequently
occupied. Social factors, learned behavior, and proximity to their prey
base are also thought to influence the location of haulout sites.
Traditional walrus haulout sites in the eastern Chukchi Sea include
Cape Thompson, Cape Lisburne, and Icy Cape. In recent years, the Cape
Lisburne haulout site has seen regular use in late summer. Numerous
haulouts also exist along the northern coastline of Chukotka, and on
Wrangel and Herald islands, which are considered important hauling
grounds in September, especially in years when the pack-ice retreats
far to the north.
Although capable of diving to deeper depths, walruses are for the
most part found in shallow waters of 100 m or less, possibly because of
higher productivity of their benthic foods in shallower water. They
feed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates although Native
hunters have also reported incidences of walruses preying on seals.
Prey densities are thought to vary across the continental shelf
according to sediment type and structure. Preferred feeding areas are
typically composed of sediments of soft, fine sands. The juxtaposition
of ice over appropriate depths for feeding is especially important for
females with dependent calves that are not capable of deep diving or
long exposure in the water. The mobility of the pack ice is thought to
help prevent walruses from overexploiting their prey resource. Foraging
trips may last for several days, during which time they dive to the
bottom nearly continuously. Most foraging dives to the bottom last
between 5 and 10 minutes, with a relatively short (1-2 minute) surface
interval. The intensive tilling of the sea floor by foraging walruses
is thought to have significant influence on the ecology of the Bering
and Chukchi Seas. Foraging activity recycles large quantities of
nutrients from the sea floor back into the water column, provides food
for scavenger organisms, and contributes greatly to the diversity of
the benthic community.
3. Life History
Walruses are long-lived animals with low rates of reproduction.
Females reach sexual maturity at 4-9 years of age. Males become fertile
at 5-7 years of age; however, they are usually unable to compete for
mates until they reach full physical maturity at 15-16 years of age.
Breeding occurs between January and March in the pack-ice of the Bering
Sea. Calves are usually born in late April or May the following year
during the northward migration from the Bering Sea to the Chukchi Sea.
Calving areas in the Chukchi Sea extend from the Bering Strait to
latitude 70 [deg]N. Calves are capable of entering the water shortly
after birth, but tend to haulout frequently, until their swimming
ability and blubber layer are well developed. Newborn calves are tended
closely. They accompany their mother from birth and are usually not
weaned for 2 years or more. Cows brood neonates to aid in their
thermoregulation, and carry them on their back or under their flipper
while in the water. Females with newborns often join together to form
large ``nursery herds''. Summer distribution of females and young
walruses is closely tied to the movements of the pack-ice relative to
feeding areas. Females give birth to one calf every two or more years.
This reproductive rate is much lower than other pinniped species;
however, some walruses live to age 35-40, and remain reproductively
active until relatively late in life.
Walruses are extremely social and gregarious animals. They tend to
travel in groups and haul-out onto ice or land in groups. Walruses
spend approximately one-third of their time hauled out onto land or
ice. Hauled-out walruses tend to lie in close physical contact with
each other. Youngsters often lie on top of the adults. The size of the
hauled-out groups can range from a few animals up to several thousand
individuals.
4. Mortality
Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are known to prey on walrus calves,
and killer whales (Orcinus orca) have been known to take all age
classes of animals. Predation levels are thought to be highest near
terrestrial haulout sites where large aggregations of walruses can be
found; however, few observations exist for off-shore environs.
Pacific walruses have been hunted by coastal Natives in Alaska and
Chukotka for thousands of years. Exploitation of the Pacific walrus
population by
[[Page 30678]]
Europeans has also occurred in varying degrees since first contact.
Presently, walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka is restricted to meet
the subsistence needs of aboriginal peoples. The combined harvest of
the United States and Russia averages approximately 5,500 walruses per
year. This mortality estimate includes corrections for under-reported
harvest and struck and lost animals.
Intraspecific trauma is also a known source of injury and
mortality. Disturbance events can cause walruses to stampede into the
water and have been known to result in injuries and mortalities. The
risk of stampede-related injuries increases with the number of animals
hauled out. Calves and young animals at the perimeter of these herds
are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries.
5. Distributions and Abundance of Pacific Walruses in the Chukchi Sea
Walruses are seasonably abundant in the Chukchi Sea. Their
distribution is thought to be influenced primarily by the extent of the
seasonal pack-ice, although habitat use patterns are poorly known. In
May and June, most of the Pacific walrus population migrates through
the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea. Walruses tend to migrate into
the Chukchi Sea along lead systems that develop along the northwest
coast of Alaska. Walruses are expected to be closely associated with
the southern edge of the seasonal pack-ice during the open water
season. By July, large groups of walruses, up to several thousand
animals, can be found along the edge of the pack ice between Icy Cape
and Point Barrow. During August, the edge of the pack-ice generally
retreats northward to about 71 [deg]N, but in light ice years, the ice
edge can retreat beyond 76 [deg]N. The sea ice normally reaches its
minimum (northern) extent in September. It is unclear how walruses
respond in years when the sea ice retreats beyond the relatively
shallow continental shelf waters. At least some animals are thought to
migrate west towards Chukotka, while others have been observed hauling
out along the shoreline between Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne. The
pack-ice rapidly advances southward in October, and most animals are
thought to have returned to the Bering Sea by early November.
A recent abundance estimate for the number of walruses present in
the Chukchi Sea during the proposed operating season is lacking.
Previous aerial surveys of the region carried out in the 1980s resulted
in abundance estimates ranging from 62,177-101,213. A 1990 aerial
survey reported 16,489 walruses distributed in the Chukchi Sea pack-ice
between Wrangel Island and Point Barrow; however, the sea-ice was
distributed well beyond the continental shelf at the time of the
survey. These abundance estimates are all considered conservative
because no corrections were made for walruses in water (not visible) at
the time of the surveys.
Polar Bears
1. Alaska Stock Definition and Range
Polar bears occur throughout the Arctic. The world population
estimate of polar bears ranges from 20,000-25,000 individuals. In
Alaska, they have been observed as far south in the eastern Bering Sea
as St. Matthew Island and the Pribilof Islands. However, they are most
commonly found within 180 miles of the Alaskan coast of the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas, from the Bering Strait to the Canadian border. Two
stocks occur in Alaska: (1) The Chukchi-Bering Seas stock (CS); and (2)
the Southern Beaufort Sea stock (SBS). A summary of the Chukchi and
Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear stocks are described below. A detailed
description of the Chukchi Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear
stocks can be found in the ``Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar Bear
(Ursus Maritimus)'' (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm).
A. Chukchi/Bering Sea Stock (CS)
The CS is defined as polar bears inhabiting the area as far west as
the eastern portion of the Eastern Siberian Sea, as far east as Point
Barrow, and extending into the Bering Sea, with its southern boundary
determined by the extent of annual ice. Based upon these telemetry
studies, the western boundary of the population was set near Chaunskaya
Bay in northeastern Russia. The eastern boundary was set at Icy Cape,
Alaska, which also is the previous western boundary of the SBS. This
eastern boundary constitutes a large overlap zone with bears in the SBS
population. The CS population is estimated to comprise 2,000 animals
based on extrapolation of aerial den surveys; however, these estimates
have wide ranges (ca. 2,000-5,000) and are considered to be of little
value for management. Reliable estimates of population size based upon
mark and recapture are not available for this region. The status of the
CS population, which was believed to have increased after the level of
harvest was reduced in 1972, is now thought to be uncertain or
declining. Measuring the population size remains a research challenge
and recent reports of substantial levels of illegal harvest in Russia
are cause for concern. Legal harvesting activities are currently
restricted to Inuit in western Alaska. In Alaska, average annual
harvest levels declined by approximately 50 percent between the 1980s
and the 1990s and have remained at low levels in recent years. There
are several factors potentially affecting the harvest level in western
Alaska. The factor of greatest direct relevance is the substantial
illegal harvest in Chukotka. In addition, other factors such as
climatic change and its effects on pack ice distribution, as well as
changing demographics and hunting effort in native communities could
influence the declining take. Recent measures undertaken by regional
authorities in Chukotka may have reduced the illegal hunt. The unknown
rate of illegal take makes the stable designation uncertain and
tentative.
B. Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS)
The SBS polar bear population is shared between Canada and Alaska.
Radio-telemetry data, combined with earlier tag returns from harvested
bears, suggested that the SBS region comprised a single population with
a western boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an eastern boundary near
Pearce Point, Northwest Territories, Canada. Early estimates suggested
the size of the SBS population was approximately 1,800 polar bears,
although uneven sampling was known to compromise the accuracy of that
estimate. A preliminary population analysis of the SBS stock was
completed in June 2006 through joint research coordinated between the
United States and Canada. That analysis indicated the population of the
region between Icy Cape and Pearce Point is now approximately 1,500
polar bears (95 percent confidence intervals approximately 1,000-
2,000). Further analyses are likely to tighten the confidence
intervals, but not likely to change the point estimate appreciably.
Although the confidence intervals of the current population estimate
overlap the previous population estimate of 1,800, other statistical
and ecological evidence (e.g., high recapture rates encountered in the
field) suggest that the current population is actually smaller than has
been estimated for this area in the past. Although the new SBS
population estimate is preliminary, we believe it should be used for
current status assessments.
Recent analyses of radio-telemetry data of spatio-temporal use
patterns of bears of the SBS stock using new spatial modelling
techniques suggest realignment of the boundaries of the Southern
Beaufort Sea area. We now
[[Page 30679]]
know that nearly all bears in the central coastal region of the
Beaufort Sea are from the SBS population, and that proportional
representation of SBS bears decreases to both the west and east. For
example, only 50 percent of the bears occurring in Barrow, Alaska, and
Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, are SBS bears, with the remainder
being from the CS and northern Beaufort Sea populations, respectively.
The recent radio-telemetry data indicate that bears from the SBS
population seldom reach Pearce Point, which is currently on the eastern
management boundary for the SBS population. Conversely, SBS bears can
also be found in the western regions of their range in the Chukchi Sea
(i.e., Wainwright and Point Lay) in lower proportions than the central
portion of their range.
Management and conservation concerns for polar bears include:
climate change, which continues to increase both the expanse and
duration of open water in summer and fall; human activities within the
near-shore environment, including hydrocarbon development and
production; atmospheric and oceanic transport of contaminants into the
Arctic; and the potential for inadvertent over-harvest, should polar
bear stocks become nutritionally-stressed or decline due to some
combination of the aforementioned threats.
On January 9, 2007 (72 FR 1064), the Service proposed to list the
polar bear as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended, based on a comprehensive scientific review to
assess the current status and future of the species. The Service will
gather more information, undertake additional analyses, and assess the
reliability of relevant scientific models before making a final
decision whether to list the species. More information can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/ and http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2006/010907FRproposedrule.pdf.
2. Habitat
Polar bears of the Chukchi Sea are subject to the movements and
coverage of the pack-ice. The most extensive north-south movements of
polar bears are associated with the spring and fall ice movement. For
example, during the 2006 ice-covered season, six bears radio-collared
in the Beaufort Sea were located in the Chukchi and Bering Seas as far
south as 59 [deg] latitude. Summer movements tend to be less dramatic
due to the reduction of ice habitat. Summer distribution is somewhat
dependent upon the location of the ice front; however, polar bears are
accomplished swimmers and are often seen on floes separated from the
main pack-ice. Therefore, bears can appear at any time in what can be
called ``open water.'' The summer ice pack can be quite disjunct and
segments can be driven by wind great distances carrying polar bears
with them. Bears from both stocks overlap in their distribution around
Point Barrow and can move into surrounding areas depending on ice
conditions.
Polar bears spend most of their time in near-shore, shallow waters
over the productive continental shelf associated with the shear zone
and the active ice adjacent to the shear zone. Sea ice and food
availability are two important factors affecting the distribution of
polar bears. In the near-shore environment, Beaufort Sea polar bears
are generally widely distributed in low numbers across the Beaufort Sea
area; however, polar bears have been observed congregating on the
barrier islands in the fall and winter, resting, moving, and feeding on
available food. Polar bears will occasionally feed on bowhead whale
(Balaena mysticetus) carcasses at Point Barrow, Cross, and Barter
islands, areas where bowhead whales are harvested for subsistence
purposes. An increased trend by polar bears to use coastal habitats in
the fall during open-water and freeze-up conditions has been noted
since 1992.
3. Denning and Reproduction
Although insufficient data exist to accurately quantify polar bear
denning along the Alaskan Chukchi Sea coast, dens in the area are less
concentrated than for other areas in the Arctic. The majority of
denning of Chukchi Sea polar bears occurs on Wrangel Island, Herald
Island, and certain locations on the northern Chukotka coast. Females
without dependent cubs breed in the spring. Females can initiate
breeding at 5 to 6 years of age. Females with cubs do not mate.
Pregnant females enter maternity dens by late November, and the young
are usually born in late December or early January. Only pregnant
females den for an extended period during the winter; other polar bears
may excavate temporary dens to escape harsh winter winds. An average of
two cubs are usually born, and after giving birth, the female and her
cubs remain in the den where the cubs are nurtured until they can walk.
Reproductive potential (intrinsic rate of increase) is low. The average
reproductive interval for a polar bear is 3 to 4 years, and a female
polar bear can produce about 8 to 10 cubs in her lifetime; in healthy
populations, 50 to 60 percent of the cubs will survive. Female bears
can be quite sensitive to disturbances during this denning period.
In late March or early April, the female and cubs emerge from the
den. If the mother moves young cubs from the den before they can walk
or withstand the cold, mortality to the cubs may increase. Therefore,
it is thought that successful denning, birthing, and rearing activities
require a relatively undisturbed environment. Radio and satellite
telemetry studies elsewhere indicate that denning can occur in multi-
year pack-ice and on land.
Both fur and fat are important to polar bears for insulation in air
and water. Cubs-of-the-year must accumulate a sufficient layer of fat
in order to maintain their body temperature when immersed in water. It
is unknown to what extent young cubs can withstand exposure in water
before they are threatened by hypothermia. Polar bears groom their fur
to maintain its insulative value.
4. Prey
Ringed seals (Phoca hispida) are the primary prey of polar bears in
most areas. Bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) and walrus calves are
hunted occasionally. Polar bears opportunistically scavenge marine
mammal carcasses, and there are reports of polar bears killing beluga
whales (Delphinapterus leucas) trapped in the ice. Polar bears are also
known to eat nonfood items including styrofoam, plastic, antifreeze,
and hydraulic and lubricating fluids.
Polar bears hunt seals along leads and other areas of open water or
by waiting at a breathing hole, or by breaking through the roof of a
seal's lair. Lairs are excavated in snow drifts on top of the ice.
Bears also stalk seals in the spring when they haul out on the ice in
warm weather. The relationship between ice type and bear distribution
is as yet unknown, but it is suspected to be related to seal
availability.
5. Mortality
Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30 years) and have no natural
predators, and they do not appear to be prone to death by diseases or
parasites. Cannibalism by adult males on cubs and occasionally on other
bears is known to occur. The most significant source of mortality is
man. Before the MMPA was passed in 1972, polar bears were taken by
sport hunters and residents. Between 1925 and 1972, the mean reported
kill was 186 bears per year. Seventy-five percent of these were males,
as cubs and females with cubs were protected. Since 1972, only Alaska
Natives from coastal Alaskan villages have been allowed to
[[Page 30680]]
hunt polar bears in the United States for their subsistence uses or for
handicraft and clothing items for sale. The Native hunt occurs without
restrictions on sex, age, or number provided that the population is not
determined to be depleted. From 1980 to 2005, the total annual harvest
for Alaska averaged 101 bears: 64 percent from the Chukchi Sea and 36
percent from the Beaufort Sea. Other sources of mortality related to
human activities include bears killed during research activities,
euthanasia of sick or injured bears, and defense of life kills by non-
Natives.
6. Distributions and Abundance of Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea
Polar bears are seasonably abundant in the Chukchi Sea and Lease
Sale Area 193 and their distribution is influenced by the movement of
the seasonal pack ice. Polar bears in the Chukchi and Bering Seas move
south with the advancing ice during fall and winter and move north in
advance of the receding ice in late spring and early summer. The
distance between the northern and southern extremes of the seasonal
pack ice is approximately 800 miles. In May and June, polar bears are
likely to be encountered in the Lease Sale Area 193 as they move
northward from the northern Bering Sea through the Bering Strait into
the southern Chukchi Sea. During the fall/early winter period, polar
bears are likely to be encountered in the Lease Sale Area 193 during
their southward migration in late October and November. Furthermore,
bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea population can be encountered in
the Chukchi Sea as they travel with the pack ice in search of food.
Polar bears are dependent upon the sea ice for foraging and the most
productive areas seem to be near the ice edge, leads, or polynas where
the ocean depth is minimal. In addition, polar bears could be present
along the shoreline in this area as they will opportunistically
scavenge on marine mammal carcasses washed up along the shoreline.
Subsistence Use and Harvest Patterns of Pacific Walruses and Polar
Bears
Walruses and polar bears have been traditionally harvested by
Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. The harvest of these species
plays an important role in the culture and economy of many coastal
communities in Alaska and Chukotka. Walrus meat is consumed by humans
and dogs, and the ivory is used to manufacture traditional arts and
crafts. Polar bears are primarily hunted for their fur, which is used
to manufacture cold weather gear; however, their meat is also
occasionally consumed. The communities most likely to be impacted by
the proposed activities are Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and
Barrow.
An exemption under section 101(b) of the MMPA allows Alaska Natives
who reside in Alaska and dwell on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean
or the Arctic Ocean to take walruses and polar bears if such taking is
for subsistence purposes or occurs for purposes of creating and selling
authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing, as long as the
take is not done in a wasteful manner. Under the terms of the MMPA,
there are no restrictions on the number, season, or ages of walruses or
polar bears that can be harvested in Alaska. A more restrictive Native
to Native agreement between the Inupiat from Alaska and the Inuvialuit
in Canada was created for the Southern Beaufort Sea stock of polar
bears in 1988. Polar bears harvested from the communities of Barrow and
Wainwright are currently considered part of the Southern Beaufort Sea
stock and thus are subject to the terms of the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar
Bear Management Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement establishes quotas
and recommendations concerning protection of denning females, family
groups, and methods of take. Quotas are based on estimates of
population size and age-specific estimates of survival and recruitment.
The polar bears harvested by the communities of Point Hope and Point
Lay are thought to come primarily from the Chukchi/Bering sea stock.
Neither Point Hope nor Point Lay hunters are parties to the Agreement.
The Service collects information on the subsistence harvest of
walruses and polar bears in Alaska through the Marking, Tagging and
Reporting Program (MTRP). The program is administered through a network
of MTRP ``taggers'' employed in subsistence hunting communities. The
marking and tagging rule requires that hunters report harvested
walruses and polar bears to MTRP taggers within 30 days of kill.
Taggers also certify (tag) specified parts (ivory tusks for walruses,
hide and skull for polar bears) to help control illegal take and trade.
It is unknown what proportion of the total U.S. walrus harvest is
reported through the MTRP, although some estimates are as low as 30
percent. Polar bear harvests reported by the MTRP are believed to be as
high as 80 percent of the actual subsistence harvest.
Harvest levels of polar bears and walruses in these communities
vary considerably between years, presumably in response to differences
in animal distributions and ice conditions. Descriptive information on
subsistence harvests of walruses and polar bears in each community is
presented below.
Point Hope
Between 1990 and 2005, the average annual walrus harvest recorded
through the MTRP at Point Hope was 5.6 ( 5.8, SD) animals
per year. Point Hope hunters typically begin their walrus hunt in late
May and June as walruses migrate into the Chukchi Sea. The sea ice is
usually well off shore of Point Hope by July and does not bring animals
back into the range of hunters until late August and September. Most
(70.8 percent) of the reported walrus harvest at Point Hope occurred in
the months of June and September. Most of the walruses recorded through
the MTRP at Point Hope were taken within five miles of the coast, or
near coastal haulout sites at Cape Lisburne and Cape Thompson.
Between 1990 and 2005, the average reported polar bear harvest at
Point Hope was 12.1 4.1 animals per year. Polar bear
harvests typically occur from January to April. Most of the polar bears
reported through the MTRP program were harvested within 10 miles of the
community; however, residents also reported taking polar bears as far
away as Cape Thompson and Cape Lisburne.
Point Lay
Point Lay hunters reported an average of 4.4 3.4
walruses per year between 1990 and 2005. Based on MTRP data, walrus
hunting in Point Lay peaks in June-July with 84.4 percent of all
walruses being harvested during these months. Historically, harvests
have occurred primarily within 40 miles north and south along the coast
from Point Lay and approximately 30 miles offshore.
Between 1990 and 2005, the average reported polar bear harvest at
Point Lay was 2.2 1.8 animals per year. The only
information on harvest locations comes from the MTRP database; all
reported harvest occurred within 25 miles of Point Lay.
Wainwright
Wainwright hunters have consistently harvested more walruses than
any other subsistence community on the North Slope. Between 1990 and
2005, the average reported walrus harvest in Wainwright was 50.8 30.0 animals per year. A discrepancy between MTRP data and other
sources of harvest information is noted. Walruses are thought to
represent approximately 40 percent of the communities' annual
subsistence diet of marine mammals. Wainwright residents hunt walruses
from June
[[Page 30681]]
through August as the ice retreats northward. Walruses are plentiful in
the pack-ice near the village this time of year. Most (85.2 percent) of
the harvest occurs in June and July. Most walrus hunting is thought to
occur within 20 miles of the community, in all directions.
Between 1990 and 2005, the average reported polar bear harvest at
Wainwright was 6.8 4.0 animals per year. Polar bears are
harvested throughout much of the year, with peak harvests reported in
May and December. Polar bear are often harvested coincidentally with
beluga and bowhead whale harvests. MTRP data indicates that most
hunting occurs within 10 miles of the community.
Barrow
Barrow is the northernmost community within the geographical region
being considered. Most (88.6 percent) walrus hunting occurs in June and
July when the land-fast ice breaks up and hunters can access the
walruses by boat as they migrate north on the retreating pack-ice.
Walrus hunters from Barrow sometimes range up to 60 miles from shore;
however, most harvests reported through the MTRP have occurred within
30 miles of the community. Between 1990 and 2005, the average reported
walrus harvest in Barrow was 26.0 15.2 animals per year.
Between 1990 and 2005, the average reported polar bear harvest at
Barrow was 20.9 (+8.0 animals per year). The number of polar bears
harvested in Barrow is thought to be influenced by ice conditions and
the number of people out on the ice. Most (74 percent) of all polar
bear harvests reported by Barrow residents occurred in February and
March. Although relatively few people are thought to hunt specifically
for polar bears, those that do hunt primarily between October and
March. Hunting areas for polar bears overlap strongly with areas of
bowhead subsistence hunting; particularly the area from Point Barrow
South to Walakpa where walrus and whale carcasses are known to
concentrate polar bears.
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
Pacific Walruses
1. Disturbance
Proposed oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea
Region include the operation of seismic survey vessels, drill-ships,
icebreakers, supply boats, fixed-winged aircrafts, and helicopters.
Operating this equipment near walruses could result in disturbances.
Potential effects of disturbances on walruses include insufficient
rest, increased stress and energy expenditure, interference with
feeding, masking of communication, and impaired thermoregulation of
calves spending too much time in the water. Prolonged or repeated
disturbances could displace individuals or herds from preferred feeding
or resting areas. Disturbance events frequently cause walrus groups to
abandon land or ice haulouts. Severe disturbance events occasionally
result in trampling injuries or cow-calf separations, both of which are
potentially fatal. Calves and young animals at the perimeter of the
herds appear particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries. Under
certain ice conditions, noise generated from exploration activities
could potentially obstruct migratory pathways and interfere with the
free movements of animals.
The response of walruses to disturbance stimuli is highly variable.
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. Hearing
sensitivity is assumed to be within the 13 Hz and 1,200 Hz range of
their own vocalizations. Walrus hunters and researchers have noted that
walruses tend to react to the presence of humans and machines at
greater distances from upwind approaches than from downwind approaches,
suggesting that odor is also a stimulus for a flight response. The
visual acuity of walruses is thought to be less than for other species
of pinnipeds.
Seismic operations are expected to add significant levels of noise
into the marine environment. There are relatively few data available to
evaluate the potential response of walruses to seismic operations.
Although the hearing sensitivity of walruses is poorly known, source
levels associated with Marine 3D and 2D seismic surveys are thought to
be high enough to cause temporary hearing loss in other pinniped
species. Therefore, walruses within the 180-decibel (dB re 1 [mu]Pa)
safety radius for seismic activities could potentially suffer shifts in
hearing thresholds and temporary hearing loss.
The reaction of walruses to vessel traffic appears to be dependent
upon vessel type, distance, speed, and previous exposure to
disturbances. Underwater noise from vessel traffic in the Chukchi Sea
could ``mask'' ordinary communication between individuals. Ice
management operations are expected to have the greatest potential for
disturbances since these operations typically require vessels to
accelerate, reverse direction, and turn rapidly, activities that
maximize propeller cavitations and resulting noise levels. Previous
monitoring efforts suggest that icebreaking activities can displace
some walrus groups up to several kilometers away; however, most groups
of hauled out walruses showed little reaction beyond 1/2 mile.
Environmental variables such as wind speed and direction are also
thought to contribute to variability in detection and response.
Reactions of walruses to aircraft are thought to vary with aircraft
type, range, flight pattern, and environmental conditions as well as
the age, sex, and group size of exposed individuals. Fixed-winged
aircraft appear less likely to elicit a response than helicopter over-
flights. Walruses are particularly sensitive to changes in engine noise
and are more likely to stampede when planes turn or fly low overhead.
Researchers conducting aerial surveys for walruses in fixed-winged
aircrafts over sea ice habitats have observed little reaction to
aircrafts above 1,000 ft (305 m).
A lack of information concerning the distribution and abundance of
walruses in the Chukchi Sea precludes a meaningful assessment of the
numbers of animals likely to be impacted by proposed exploration
activities. Based upon previous aerial survey efforts and exploration
monitoring programs, walruses are expected to be closely associated
with seasonal pack ice during the proposed operating season. Therefore,
in evaluating potential impacts of exploration activities, broken pack
ice may serve as a reasonable predictor of walrus abundance. Activities
occurring in or near sea ice habitats are presumed to have the greatest
potential for impacting walruses.
Geotechnical seismic surveys and high-resolution site clearance
seismic surveys are expected to occur primarily in open water
conditions, at a sufficient distance from the pack ice and large
concentrations of walruses to avoid most disturbances. Based upon
previous seismic monitoring programs, seismic surveys can be expected
to interact with relatively small numbers of walruses swimming in open
water. Industry will adopt standard seismic mitigation measures
including the monitoring of a 180-dB ensonification exclusion zone,
which will reduce the potential for air-gun pulses to injure walruses
during seismic operations. Although the
[[Page 30682]]
hearing sensitivity of walruses is poorly known, walruses swimming in
open water will likely be able to detect air-gun pulses well beyond the
180-dB safety radius. The most likely response of walruses in open
water to acoustic and visual cues will be for animals to move away from
the source of the disturbance. Because of the transitory nature of the
proposed seismic surveys, impacts to walruses exposed to seismic survey
operations are expected to be temporary in nature and have little or no
effects on survival or recruitment. Marine mammal monitoring programs
are expected to provide insight into the response of walruses to
various seismic operations from which future mitigative conditions can
be developed.
Although seismic surveys are expected to occur in areas of open
water some distance from the pack ice, support vessels and/or aircraft
supporting seismic operations (1 every 2 weeks) may encounter
aggregations of walruses hauled out onto sea ice. The sight, sound, or
smell of humans and machines could potentially displace these animals
from ice haulouts. Because seismic operations are expected to move
throughout the Chukchi Sea, impacts associated with support vessels and
aircrafts are likely to be distributed in time and space. Therefore,
noise and disturbance from aircraft and vessel traffic associated with
seismic surveys are expected to have relatively localized, short-term
effects. The potential for disturbance events resulting in injuries,
mortalities, or mother-calf separations is of concern. The potential
for injuries is expected to increase with the size of affected walrus
aggregations. Mitigation measures designed to separate Industry
activities from walrus aggregations are expected to reduce the
potential for animal injuries, mortalities, and mother-calf
separations. Restricting offshore exploration activities to the open-
water season (July 1-November 30) is expected to reduce the number of
potential interactions between walruses and industry operations
occurring in or near sea ice habitats. Adaptive operational
restrictions, including a 0.5-mile (800-m) operational exclusion zone
for marine vessels, and a 1,000-ft altitude restriction for aircraft
flying near walrus groups hauled-out onto sea ice, are expected to
reduce the intensity of disturbance events and minimize the potential
for injuries, mortalities, and mother-calf separations.
Drilling operations are expected to occur at several offshore
locations. Although drilling activities are expected to occur primarily
during open water conditions, the dynamic movements of sea ice could
transport walruses within range of drilling operations. Drilling
operations are expected to involve drill ships attended by icebreaking
vessels to manage incursions of sea ice. Monitoring programs associated
with exploratory drilling operations in the Chukchi Sea in 1990 noted
that 25 percent of walrus groups encountered in the pack ice during
icebreaking operations responded by diving into the water, with most
reactions occurring within 1 km of the ship.
Drilling operations will also be supported by supply vessels (1-3
trips per week) and/or helicopters (1-3 trips per day) depending upon
the distance from shore. Support missions could encounter aggregations
of walruses on sea ice along their transportation route. Because
drilling operations are expected to last from 30-90 days at a single
location, walruses in the vicinity of drilling operations could be
subjected to prolonged or repeated disturbances. The most likely
response of walruses subjected to prolonged or repeated disturbances
will be for them to abandon the area.
The distribution and abundance of walruses in the Chukchi Sea is
poorly understood. Without knowledge of the relative importance of
various habitat areas, or the likely locations of drilling operations,
it is difficult to predict the number of animals likely to be impacted
by drilling operations. Additional monitoring and mitigation measures
will be required in the event that a prospective drill-site occurs in
important habitat areas. The MMS permit stipulation identifying a 0.5-
mile operational exclusion zone around groups of hauled-out walruses is
expected to help mitigate disturbances to walruses near prospective
drill sites. Mitigation measures specified in an LOA including
requirements for ice-scouting, surveys for walruses and polar bears in
the vicinity of active drilling operations and ice breaking activities,
requirements for marine mammal observers onboard drill-ships and ice
breakers, and operational restrictions near walrus and polar bear
aggregations are expected to further reduce the potential for
interactions between walruses and drilling operations.
2. Waste Discharge and Oil Spills
The potential exists for fuel and oil spills to occur from seismic
and support vessels, fuel barges, and drilling operations. Little is
known about the effects of fuel and oil on walruses; however, walruses
may react to fuel and oil much like other pinniped species. Damage to
the skin of pinnipeds can occur from contact with oil because some of
the oil penetrates into the skin, causing inflammation and ulcers.
Exposure to oil can quickly cause permanent eye damage. In studies
conducted on other species of pinnipeds, pulmonary hemorrhage,
inflammation, congestion, and nerve damage resulted after exposure to
concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a period of 24 hours. Walruses are
extremely gregarious animals and normally associate in large groups;
therefore, any contact with spilled oil or fuel could impact several
individuals.
Exposure to oil could also impact benthic prey species. Bivalve
mollusks, a favorite prey species of the walrus, are not effective at
processing hydrocarbon compounds, resulting in highly concentrated
accumulations and long-term retention of contamination within the
organism. Exposure to oil may kill prey organisms or result in slower
growth and productivity. Because walrus feed primarily on mollusks,
they may be more vulnerable to a loss of this prey species than other
pinnipeds that feed on a larger variety of prey.
Although fuel and oil spills has the potential to cause adverse
impacts to walruses and prey species, operational spills associated
with the proposed exploration activities are not considered a major
threat. Operational spills would likely be of a relatively small
volume, and occur in areas of open water where walrus densities are
expected to be relatively low. MMS operating stipulations, including
oil spill prevention and response plans, reduce both the risk and scale
of potential spills. Any impacts associated with an operational spill
are expected to be limited to a small number of animals.
A potentially more serious type of oil spill is the blowout, an
uncontrolled release of oil or gas from an exploratory well. Blowout
prevention technology and well control procedures have been designed to
minimize the risk of a blowout. Blowout prevention technology will be
required for all exploratory drilling operations in the Chukchi Sea,
and the MMS considers the likelihood of a blowout occurring during
exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea as negligible (MMS DEIS).
3. Results of Previous Monitoring Studies
Oil and gas related activities have been conducted in the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas since the late 1960's. Much more oil and gas related
activity has occurred in the Beaufort Sea OCS than in the Chukchi Sea
OCS. Many offshore activities required ice management (icebreaking),
helicopter traffic, fixed-wing aircraft monitoring,
[[Page 30683]]
other support vessels and stand-by barges. Though no studies have
examined the impacts of these activities on the Pacific walrus
population, some information exists on encounter rates and behavioral
responses of individual walruses to previous oil and gas related
activities.
Pacific walruses do not normally range into the Beaufort Sea,
although individuals and small groups are occasionally observed. From
1994 to 2004, Industry monitoring programs recorded a total of nine
walrus sightings involving a total of 10 animals. Three of the reported
sightings involved potential disturbances to walruses; two sightings
were of individual animals hauled-out onto the armor of Northstar
Island, and one sighting occurred at the McCovey prospect, where a
walrus appeared to react to helicopter noise. Physical effects or
impacts to individual walruses were not noted. Because of the small
numbers of walruses encountered by past and present oil and gas
activity in the Beaufort Sea, impacts to the Pacific walrus population
appear to have been minimal.
Three pre-lease seismic surveys were carried out in the Chukchi Sea
OCS planning area in 2006. Marine mammal observers onboard the seismic
and support vessels recorded a total of 1,186 walrus sightings during
their operations. Most of the walrus sightings were reported by seismic
support vessels during ice-scouting missions. Three hundred and
eighteen of the walruses sighted (27 percent) exhibited some form of
behavioral response to the vessels, primarily dispersal or diving.
Seismic vessels, operating in open water conditions, recorded a total
of 33 walrus sightings. Marine mammal observers reported 19 incidents
in which walruses were observed within a predetermined safety zone of
ensonification, requiring the shutdown of airgun arrays to prevent
potential injuries. Based upon the transitory nature of the survey
vessels, and the monitoring reports that noted behavioral reactions of
the animals to the passage of the vessels, our best assessment is that
most of these interactions resulted in no more than temporary changes
in animal behavior.
Aerial surveys and vessel-based observations of walruses were
carried out in 1989 and 1990 to examine the responses of walruses to
drilling operations at three Chukchi Sea drill prospects. Aerial
surveys documented several thousand walruses in the vicinity of the
drilling prospects; most of the animals (>90 percent) were closely
associated with sea ice. Vessel-based observations indicated that
walrus response to drilling operations was greatest during ice
management activities. The 1990 survey effort noted that 25 percent of
walrus groups encountered in the pack ice during icebreaking responded
by diving into the water, with most reactions occurring within 1 km of
the ship. The monitoring report, noting that: (1) Walrus distributions
were closely linked with pack ice; (2) pack ice was near active drill
prospects for relatively short time periods; and (3) ice passing near
active prospects contained relatively few animals, concluded that
effects of the drilling operations on walruses were limited in time,
geographical scale, and proportion of the affected population.
4. Cumulative Effects
The following types of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions and factors have contributed to the environmental baseline
conditions in the Chukchi Sea and could contribute to potential
cumulative effects on the Pacific walrus population:
Commercial and Subsistence Harvest--Walruses have an intrinsically
low rate of reproduction and, therefore, are limited in their capacity
to respond to exploitation. In the late 19th century, American whalers
intensively harvested walruses in the northern Bering and southern
Chukchi seas. Between 1869 and 1879, catches averaged more than 10,000
per year, with many more animals struck and lost. The population was
substantially depleted by the end of the century, and the industry
collapsed in the early 1900s. Since 1930, the combined walrus harvests
of the United States and Russia have ranged from 2,300-9,500 animals
per year. Notable harvest peaks occurred during 1930-1960 (4,500-9,500
per year) and in the 1980's (5,000-9,000 per year). Commercial hunting
continued in Russia until 1991 under a quota system of up to 3,000
animals per year. Since 1992, the harvest of Pacific walruses has been
limited to the subsistence catch of coastal communities in Alaska and
Chukotka. Harvest levels through the 1990s ranged from approximately
2,400-4,700 animals per year. Although recent harvest levels are lower
than historic highs, the lack of information on population size or
trend precludes an assessment of sustainable harvest rates.
Climate Change--Analysis of long-term environmental data sets
indicate that substantial reductions in both the extent and thickness
of the arctic sea-ice cover have occurred over the past 20-40 years,
with record minimum extent in 2002 and again in 2005, and extreme
minimal in 2003 and 2004. The Chukchi Sea DEIS provides a comprehensive
literature review regarding potential impacts of diminishing sea ice on
Arctic marine mammals (V.C.8.b.). Walruses rely on suitable sea ice as
a substrate for resting between foraging bouts, calving, molting,
isolation from predators, and protection from storm events. Reasonably
foreseeable impacts to walruses as a result of diminishing sea ice
cover include: Shifts in range and abundance; population declines in
prey species; increased mortalities resulting from storm events; and
premature separation of females and dependent calves. The juxtaposition
of sea ice over shallow-shelf habitat suitable for benthic feeding is
critical to walruses. Recent trends in the Chukchi Sea have resulted in
seasonal sea-ice retreating off the continental shelf and over deep
Arctic Ocean waters, presenting significant adaptive challenges to
walruses in the region. Future studies investigating walrus
distributions, population status and trends, and habitat use patterns
in the Chukchi Sea are required to understand and respond to walrus
conservation and management issues associated with changes in the sea
ice environment.
Commercial Fishing and Marine Vessel Traffic--Based on available
data, walruses rarely interact with commercial fishing and marine
vessel traffic. Walruses are normally closely associated with sea ice,
which limits their interactions with fishing vessels and barge traffic.
However, as previously noted, the temporal and seasonal extent of the
sea ice is projected to diminish in the future. There has been
speculation recently that commercial shipping through the Northwest
Passage is likely to increase in the coming decades. Commercial fishing
opportunities may also expand should the sea ice continue to diminish.
The result could be increased temporal and spatial overlap between
fishing and shipping operations and walrus habitat use and increased
interactions between walruses and marine vessels.
Past Offshore Oil and Gas Related Activities--Oil and gas related
activities have been conducted in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas since
the late 1960's. Much more oil and gas related activity has occurred in
the Beaufort Sea than in the Chukchi Sea OCS. Pacific walruses do not
normally range into the Beaufort Sea, and documented interactions
between oil and gas activities and walruses have been minimal (see
Results of Previous Monitoring Studies). The Chukchi Sea OCS has
previously experienced some oil and gas exploration activity, but no
development or production. Because of the transitory nature of past oil
and gas activities in any given region, we do not
[[Page 30684]]
expect that any of these encounters had lasting effects on individuals
or groups (see Results of Previous Monitoring Studies).
Contribution of Proposed Activities to Cumulative Impacts--The
proposed seismic surveys and exploratory drilling operations identified
by the petitioners are likely to result in some incremental cumulative
effects to walruses through the potential exclusion or avoidance of
walruses from feeding or resting areas and disruption of important
associated biological behaviors. However, relatively few walruses are
likely to interact with exploration activities in open sea conditions
where most of the proposed activities are expected to occur. Required
mitigation measures are also expected to limit the severity of any
behavioral responses. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed
exploration activities, especially as mitigated through the regulatory
process, are not expected to add significantly to the cumulative
impacts on the Pacific walrus population from past, present, and future
activities that are reasonably likely to occur within the 5-year period
covered by the regulations if adopted.
5. Evaluation
Based on our review of the proposed activities; existing operating
conditions and mitigation measures; information on the biology,
ecology, and habitat use patterns of walruses in the Chukchi Sea;
information on potential effects of oil and gas activities on walruses;
and the results of previous monitoring efforts associated with Industry
activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, we conclude that, while the
incidental take (by harassment) of walruses is reasonably likely to or
reasonably expected to occur as a result of the proposed activities,
most anticipated takes will be limited to temporary, nonlethal
disturbances impacting a relatively small proportion of the Pacific
walrus population. It is unlikely that there will be any lethal take
due to Industry activities.
We propose a finding that the total expected takings of walruses
associated with the proposed activities will have a negligible impact
on this species. This proposed finding is based on the supposition that
most of the Pacific walrus population will be associated with sea ice
during the operating season; that relatively few animals will be found
in areas of open water where proposed activities will occur; and, that
required mitigation measures will reduce the intensity of disturbance
events to short-term behavioral responses. Site-specific monitoring
programs and adaptive mitigation measures will be used to ensure that
impacts associated with the proposed activities are not greater than
anticipated. Additional mitigation measures described in the proposed
rule will help reduce the level of Industry impacts to walruses during
exploration activities through the promulgation of incidental take
regulations and the issuance of LOAs with site-specific operating
restrictions and monitoring requirements, which will provide an
additional level of mitigation and protection for walruses.
Polar Bears
1. Disturbance
In the Chukchi Sea, polar bears will have a limited presence during
the open-water season during Industry operations. It is assumed they
generally move to the northwestern portion of the Chukchi Sea and
distribute along the pack ice during this time, which is outside of the
geographic region. This limits the chances of impacts on polar bears
from Industry activities. Although polar bears have been documented in
open-water, miles from the ice edge or ice floes, this has been a
relatively rare occurrence.
A. Offshore Activities
In the open-water season, Industry activities will be generally
limited to vessel-based exploration activities, such as seismic surveys
and site clearance surveys. These activities avoid ice floes and the
multi-year ice edge; however, they could contact a limited number of
bears in open water.
Seismic exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea could affect
polar bears in a number of ways. Seismic ships and icebreakers may be
physical obstructions to polar bear movements, although these impacts
are of short term and localized effect. Noise, sights, and smells
produced by exploration activities could repel or attract bears, either
disrupting their natural behavior or endangering them by threatening
the safety of seismic personnel.
Little research has been conducted on the effects of noise on polar
bears. Polar bears are curious and tend to investigate novel sights,
smells, and possibly noises. Noise produced by seismic activities could
elicit several different responses in polar bears. Noise may act as a
deterrent to bears entering the area of operation, or the noise could
potentially attract curious bears.
In general, little is known about the potential for seismic survey
sounds to cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in polar
bears. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all,
would be limited to short distances and probably to projects involving
large airgun arrays. There is no evidence that airgun pulses can cause
serious injury, or death, even in the case of large airgun arrays.
Also, the planned monitoring and mitigation measures include shut-downs
of the airguns, which will reduce any such effects that might otherwise
occur. Polar bears normally swim with their heads above the surface,
where underwater noises are weak or undetectable. Thus, it is doubtful
that any single bear would be exposed to strong underwater seismic
sounds long enough for significant disturbance to develop.
Polar bears are known to run from sources of noise and the sight of
vessels or icebreakers, aircraft, and helicopters. The effects of
fleeing from aircraft may be minimal if the event is short and the
animal is otherwise unstressed. On a warm spring or summer day, a short
run may be enough to overheat a well-insulated polar bear; however,
fleeing from a working icebreaker may have minimal effects for a
healthy animal on a cool day.
As already stated, it is assumed that polar bears spend the
majority of their time on pack ice during the open-water season in the
Chukchi Sea, which limits the chance of impacts from human and industry
activities. In recent years, the Chukchi Sea pack ice has receded over
the Continental Shelf during the open water season. Although this poses
potential foraging ramifications, by its nature the exposed open water
creates a barrier between the majority of the ice pack-bound bear
population and human activity occurring in open water.
Researchers have observed that in some cases bears swim long
distances during the open-water period seeking either ice or land. In
2005, researchers monitored one radio-collared individual as it swam
through ice-free waters from Kotzebue north to the pack ice 350 miles
away. The bear began swimming on June 16, 2005, rested twice in open
water, presumably on icebergs and eventually reached the pack ice on
July 2, 2005. Researchers suspected that the bear was not swimming
constantly, but found solitary icebergs or remnants to haul-out on and
rest. The movement is unusual, but highlights the ice-free environment
that bears are being increasingly exposed to that requires increased
energy demands.
In addition, swimming bears could become vulnerable to exhaustion
and storm events with large waves because ice floes dissipate and
become unavailable or unsuitable for use as haulouts or resting
platforms. In the fall of 2004, four drowned polar bears were
[[Page 30685]]
observed in the Beaufort Sea during an MMS coastal aerial survey
program.
Seismic activities avoid ice floes and the pack-ice edge; however,
they may contact bears in open water. It is unlikely that seismic
exploration activities would result in more than temporary behavioral
disturbance to polar bears.
Vessel traffic could result in short-term behavioral disturbance to
polar bears. If a ship is surrounded by ice, it is more likely that
curious bears will approach. Any on-ice activities required by
exploration activities create the opportunity for bear-human
interactions. In relatively ice-free waters, polar bears are less
likely to approach ships, although they could be encountered on ice
floes. For example, during the late 1980s, at the Belcher exploration
drilling site in the Beaufort Sea, in a period of little ice, a large
floe threatened the drill rig at the site. After the floe was moved by
an icebreaker, workers noticed a female bear with a cub-of-the-year and
a lone adult swimming nearby. It was assumed these bears had been
disturbed from the ice floe.
Ships and ice breakers may act as physical obstructions, altering
or intercepting bear movements in the spring during the start-up period
for exploration if they transit through a restricted lead system, such
as the Chukchi Polyna. Polynas are important habitat for polar bears
and other marine mammals, which makes them important hunting areas for
polar bears. A similar situation could occur in the fall when the pack-
ice begins to expand. Separation of polar bears, whether on land or ice
or in water, and marine vessels by creating an operational exclusion
zone would limit potential impact of marine vessels to polar bears.
Routine aircraft traffic should have little to no effect on polar
bears; however, extensive or repeated over-flights of fixed-wing
aircraft or helicopters could disturb polar bears. Behavioral reactions
of polar bears are expected to be limited to short-term changes in
behavior that would have no long-term impact on individuals and no
impacts on the polar bear population.
Monitoring and mitigation measures required for open water,
offshore activities will include, but will not be limited to (1) a 0.5-
mile operational exclusion zone around polar bear(s) on land, ice or
swimming; (2) MMOs on board all vessels; (3) requirements for ice-
scouting, (4) surveys for polar bears in the vicinity of active
operations and ice breaking activities; and (5) operational
restrictions near polar bear aggregations. These mitigation measures
are expected to further reduce the potential for interactions between
polar bears and offshore operations.
B. Onshore Activities
Onshore activities will have the potential to interact with polar
bears mainly during the fall and ice-covered season when bears come
ashore to feed, den, or travel. Noise produced by Industry activities
during the open-water and ice-covered seasons could potentially result
in takes of polar bears at onshore activities. During the ice-covered
season, denning female bears, as well as mobile, non-denning bears,
could be exposed to oil and gas activities, such as seismic exploration
or exploratory drilling facilities, and could potentially be affected
in different ways.
Noise disturbance can originate from either stationary or mobile
sources. Stationary sources include exploratory drilling operations and
their associated facilities. Mobile sources include ice road
construction and associated vehicle traffic, including: tracked
vehicles and snowmobiles, aircraft traffic, and vibroseis programs.
Noise produced by stationary Industry activities could elicit
several different responses in polar bears. The noise may act as a
deterrent to bears entering the area, or the noise could potentially
attract bears. Attracting bears to these facilities, especially
exploration facilities in the coastal or nearshore environment, could
result in human-bear encounters, which could result in unintentional
harassment, lethal take, or intentional hazing (under separate
authorization) of the bear.
During the ice-covered season, noise and vibration from exploratory
drilling facilities could deter females from denning in the surrounding
area, although polar bears have been known to den in close proximity to
industrial activities without any perceived impacts. For example, in
1991, two maternity dens were located on the south shore of a barrier
island within 2.8 km (1.7 mi) of a production facility. In addition,
during the ice-covered season of 2001-2002, two known polar bear dens
were located within approximately 0.4 km and 0.8 km (0.25 mi and 0.5
mi) of remediation activities on Flaxman Island in the Beaufort Sea
without any observed impact to denning success or the polar bears.
In contrast, information exists indicating that polar bears may
have abandoned dens in the past due to exposure to human disturbance.
For example, in January 1985, a female polar bear may have abandoned
her den due to rolligon traffic, which occurred between 250 and 500
meters from the den site. Researcher disturbance created by camp
proximity and associated noise, which occurred during a den emergence
study in 2002 on the North Slope, may have caused a female bear and her
cub(s) to abandon their den and move to the ice sooner than necessary.
The female was observed later without the cub(s). While such events may
have occurred, information indicates they have been infrequent and
isolated.
In addition, polar bears exposed to routine industrial noises may
acclimate to those noises and show less vigilance than bears not
exposed to such stimuli. This implication came from a study that
occurred in conjunction with industrial activities performed on Flaxman
Island in 2002 and a study of undisturbed dens in 2002 and 2003 (N =
8). Researchers assessed vigilant behavior with two potential measures
of disturbance: proportion of time scanning their surroundings and the
frequency of observable vigilant behaviors. Bears exposed to industrial
activity spent less time scanning their surroundings than bears in
undisturbed areas and engaged in vigilant behavior significantly less
often.
As with offshore activities, routine aircraft traffic should have
little to no effect on polar bears; however, extensive or repeated
over-flights of fixed-wing aircraft for monitoring purposes or
helicopters used for re-supply of Industry operations could disturb
polar bears. Behavioral reactions of non-denning polar bears are expect
to be limited to short-term changes in behavior and would have no long-
term impact on individuals and no impacts on the polar bear population.
In contrast, denning bears could abandon or depart their dens early in
response to repeated noise such as that produced by extensive aircraft
over-flights. Mitigation measures, such as minimum flight elevations
over polar bears or areas of concern and flight restrictions around
known polar bear dens, will be required, as appropriate, to reduce the
likelihood that bears are disturbed by aircraft.
Noise and vibrations produced by vibroseis activities during the
ice-covered season could potentially result in impacts on polar bears.
During this time of year, denning female bears as well as mobile, non-
denning bears could be exposed to and affected differently by potential
impacts from seismic activities. The best available scientific
information indicates that female polar bears entering dens, or females
in dens with cubs, are more sensitive than other age and sex groups to
noises. Standardized mitigation measures will be implemented to limit
or minimize
[[Page 30686]]
disturbance impacts to denning females. These Industry mitigation
measures are currently in place in the Beaufort Sea and are implemented
when necessary through LOAs and will be implemented in the Chukchi Sea.
In the case of exploratory seismic or drilling activities occurring
around a known bear den, each LOA will require Industry to have
developed a polar bear interaction plan and will require Industry to
maintain a 1-mile buffer between industry activities and known denning
sites to limit disturbance to the bear. In addition, we may require
Industry to avoid working in known denning habitat depending on the
type of activity, the location of activity and the timing of the
activity. To further reduce the potential for disturbance to denning
females, we have conducted research, in cooperation with Industry, to
enable us to accurately detect active polar bear dens through the use
of Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) imagery.
FLIR imagery, as a mitigation tool, is used in cooperation with
coastal polar bear denning habitat maps and scent-trained dogs.
Industry activity areas, such as coastal ice roads, are compared to
polar bear denning habitat and transects are then created to survey the
specific habitat within the industry area. FLIR heat signatures within
a standardized den protocol are noted and further mitigation measures
are placed around these locations. These measures include the 1-mile
operational exclusion zone or increased monitoring of the site. FLIR
surveys are more effective at detecting polar bear dens than visual
observations. The effectiveness increases when FLIR surveys are
combined with site-specific, scent-trained dog surveys.
Based on these evaluations, the use of FLIR technology, coupled
with trained dogs, to locate or verify occupied polar bear dens, is a
viable technique that helps to minimize impacts of oil and gas industry
activities on denning polar bears. These techniques will continue to be
required as conditions of LOAs when appropriate.
In addition, Industry has sponsored cooperative research evaluating
transmission of noise and vibration through the ground, snow, ice, and
air and the received levels of noise and vibration in polar bear dens.
This information has been useful to refine site-specific mitigation
measures and placement of facilities.
Furthermore, as part of the LOA application for seismic surveys
during denning season, Industry provides us with the proposed seismic
survey routes. To minimize the likelihood of disturbance to denning
females, we evaluate these routes along with information about known
polar bear dens, historic denning sites, and delineated denning
habitat. Should a potential denning site be identified along the survey
route, FLIR or polar bear scent-trained dogs, or both, will be used to
determine whether the den is occupied, in which case a 1-mile buffer
surrounding the den will be required.
There is the potential for Industry activities other than seismic,
such as transport activities and ice road construction, to contact
polar bear dens as well. Known polar bear dens around the oil and gas
activities are monitored by the Service, when practicable. Only a small
percentage of the total active den locations are known in any year.
Industry routinely coordinates with the Service to determine the
location of Industry's activities relative to known dens. General LOA
provisions will be similar to those imposed on seismic activities and
will require Industry operations to avoid known polar bear dens by 1
mile. There is the possibility that an unknown den may be encountered
during Industry activities. Industry is required to contact the
Service, if a previously unknown den is identified. Communication
between Industry and the Service and the implementation of mitigation
measures, such as the 1-mile operational exclusion area around known
dens, would ensure that disturbance is minimized.
Human encounters can be dangerous for both the polar bear and the
human. These can occur during an onshore vibroseis program or at a
drilling facility. Whenever humans work in the habitat of the animal,
there is a chance of an encounter, even though, historically, such
encounters have been uncommon in association with Industry.
Encounters are more likely to occur during fall and winter periods
when greater numbers of the bears are found in the coastal environment
searching for food and possibly den sites later in the season.
Potentially dangerous encounters are most likely to occur at coastal
exploratory sites. In the Beaufort Sea, Industry has developed and uses
devices to aid in detecting polar bears, including bear monitors,
motion, and infrared detection systems. Industry also takes steps to
actively prevent bears from accessing facilities using safety gates and
fences. The types of detection and exclusion systems are implemented on
a case-by-case basis with guidance from the Service and depend on the
location and needs of the facility. Industry will implement these same
mitigative measures in the Chukchi Sea region to minimize disturbance
of polar bears.
Onshore drilling sites near the coastline could potentially attract
polar bears. Polar bears use the coastline as a travel corridor. In the
Beaufort Sea, the majority of polar bear observations have occurred
along the coastline. Most bears were observed as passing through the
area; however, nearshore facilities could potentially increase the rate
of human-bear encounters, which could result in increased incident of
harassment of bears. Employee training and company policies through
interaction plans will be implemented to reduce and mitigate such
encounters. Based on the history of effective application of
interaction plans that has resulted in reduced interactions between
polar bear and humans, no injuries or deaths to humans since the
implementation of incidental take regulations, the Service concludes
that interaction plans are an effective means of reducing Industry
impacts to polar bears.
Depending upon the circumstances, bears can be either repelled from
or attracted to sounds, smells, or sights associated with onshore
Industry activities. In the past, such interactions have been mitigated
through conditions on the LOA, which require the applicant to develop a
polar bear interaction plan for each operation. These plans outline the
steps the applicant will take, such as garbage disposal and snow
management procedures, to minimize impacts to polar bears by reducing
the attraction of Industry activities to polar bears. Interaction plans
also outline the chain of command for responding to a polar bear
sighting. In addition to interaction plans, Industry personnel
participate in polar bear interaction training while on site.
Employee training programs are designed to educate field personnel
about the dangers of bear encounters and to implement safety procedures
in the event of a bear sighting. The result of these polar bear
interaction plans and training allows personnel on site to detect bears
and respond safely and appropriately. Often, personnel are instructed
to leave an area where bears are seen. Many times polar bears are
monitored until they move out of the area. Sometimes, this response
involves deterring the bear from the site. If it is not possible to
leave, in most cases bears can be displaced by using forms of
deterrents, such as vehicles, vehicle horn, vehicle siren, vehicle
lights, spot lights, or, if necessary, pyrotechnics (e.g., cracker
shells). The purpose of these plans and training is to eliminate the
potential for injury to personnel or lethal take of bears in defense of
human
[[Page 30687]]
life. Since 1993, when the incidental take regulations became effective
in the Beaufort Sea, there has been no known instance of a bear being
killed or Industry personnel being injured by a bear as a result of
Industry activities. The mitigation measures associated with the
Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations have proven to minimize human-
bear interactions and will be part of the requirements of future LOAs
associated with the Chukchi Sea incidental take regulations.
C. Effect on Prey Species
Ringed seals are the primary prey of polar bears. Bearded seals are
also a prey source. Industry will mainly have an effect on seals
through the potential for contamination (oil spills) or industrial
noise disturbance. Oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea are
anticipated to have the same effects of contamination from oil
discharges for seals as those described in the current Beaufort Sea
incidental take regulations (71 FR 43926; August 2, 2006) in the
section ``Potential Impacts of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills
on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears'' and the ``Pacific Walruses''
subsection of this document). Studies have shown that seals can be
displaced from certain areas, such as pupping lairs or haulouts, and
abandon breathing holes near Industry activity. However, these
disturbances appear to have minor effects and are short term. In the
Chukchi Sea, offshore operations have the highest potential to impact
seals; however, due to the seasonal aspect (occurring only during the
open-water season) of offshore operations, the Service anticipates
minimal disturbance to ringed and bearded seals. In addition, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, having jurisdiction over the
conservation and management of ringed and bearded seals, is evaluating
the potential impacts of oil and gas exploration activities in the
Chukchi Sea and will identify appropriate mitigation measures for those
species, if a negligible finding is appropriate. The Service does not
expect prey availability to be significantly changed due to Industry
activities. Mitigation measures for pinnipeds required by MMS and NMFS
will reduce the impact of Industry activities on ringed and bearded
seals.
2. Waste Discharge and Potential Oil Spills
Individual polar bears can potentially be affected by Industry
activities through waste product discharge and oil spills. Spills are
unintentional releases of oil or petroleum products. In accordance with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program, all
North Slope oil companies must submit an oil spill contingency plan
with their projects. It is illegal to discharge oil into the
environment, and a reporting system requires operators to report
spills. According to MMS, on the Beaufort and Chukchi OCS, the oil
industry has drilled 35 exploratory wells. During the time of this
drilling, industry has had 35 small spills totaling 26.7 bbl or 1,120
gallons (gal). Of the 26.7 bbl spilled, approximately 24 bbl were
recovered or cleaned up. Larger spills (>1,000 bbl) accounted for much
of the annual volume. Six large spills occurred between 1985 and 2006
on the North Slope. These spills were terrestrial in nature and posed
minimal harm to walruses and polar bears. Based on the history of
effective application of oil spill plans, to date, no major exploratory
offshore oil spills have occurred on the North Slope in either the
Beaufort or Chukchi Seas.
Historical large spills associated with Alaskan oil and gas
activities on the North Slope have been production-related, and have
occurred at production facilities or pipeline connecting wells to the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. MMS estimates the chance of a large
(>=1,000 bbl) oil spill from exploratory activities in the Chukchi Sea
to be low based on the types of spills recorded in the Beaufort Sea.
For this rule, potential oil spills for exploration activities will
likely occur with the marine vessels. From past experiences, MMS
believes these will most likely be localized and relatively small.
Spills in the offshore or onshore environments classified as small
could occur during normal operations (e.g., transfer of fuel, handling
of lubricants and liquid products, and general maintenance of
equipment). Potential large spills in the Chukchi Sea region will
likely be the result of drilling platforms. Drilling platforms have
containment ability in case of a blowout, and the amount of release is
expected to be minimal.
The possibility of oil and waste product spills from Industry
activities in the Chukchi Sea and the subsequent impacts on polar bears
is a concern; however, due to the type of Industry activity planned for
the area, the potential for spills would be limited to the open-water
season in the offshore. Hence, polar bears could encounter oil spills
during the open-water and ice-covered seasons in offshore or onshore
habitat. Although the majority of the Chukchi Sea polar bear population
spends a large amount of their time offshore on the pack ice, some
bears are likely to encounter oil from a spill regardless of the season
and location.
Small spills of oil or waste products throughout the year by
Industry activities on land could potentially impact small numbers of
bears. The effects of fouling fur or ingesting oil or wastes, depending
on the amount of oil or wastes involved, could be short term or result
in death. For example, in April 1988, a dead polar bear was found on
Leavitt Island, in the Beaufort Sea, approximately 9.3 km (5 nautical
miles) northeast of Oliktok Point. The cause of death was determined to
be poisoning by a mixture that included ethylene glycol and Rhodamine B
dye; however, the source of the mixture was unknown.
During the ice-covered season, mobile, non-denning bears would have
a higher probability of encountering oil or other Industry wastes in
the onshore environment than non-mobile, denning females as terrestrial
and ocean habitats are available. Current management practices by
Industry, such as requiring the proper use, storage, and disposal of
hazardous materials, minimize the potential occurrence of such
incidents. In the event of an oil spill, it is also likely that polar
bears would be intentionally hazed to keep them away from the area,
further reducing the likelihood of impacting individuals or the
population.
Oil exposure by polar bears could occur through the consumption of
contaminated prey, and by grooming or nursing affecting motility,
digestion, and absorption. Death could occur if a large amount of oil
were ingested. Oiling can also cause thermoregulatory problems and
damage to various systems, such as the respiratory and the central
nervous systems, depending on the amount of exposure. Oil may also
affect the prey base of polar bears where possible impacts from the
loss of a food source could reduce recruitment or survival; however,
because no production activities are planned for the Chukchi Sea during
the duration of these proposed regulations, the Service does not expect
prey availability to be significantly changed due to Industry
activities. A detailed description of potential effects of exposure to
oil by polar bears can be found in the Beaufort Sea Incidental Take
Regulations (71 FR 43926; August 2, 2006).
3. Results of Previous Monitoring Studies
There is limited information regarding interactions between oil and
gas activities and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. In 1990, in
conjunction with the Shell Western E&P, Inc. walrus monitoring program,
25 polar bears
[[Page 30688]]
were observed in the pack ice between June 29, and August 11, 1990.
Seventeen bears were encountered by the Robert LeMeur during ice
reconnaissance survey before drilling began at the prospects. During
drilling operations, four bears occurred near (<9 km or 5 n mi) active
prospects, and the remainder were considerably beyond (15-40 km or 8-22
n mi.). These bears responded to the drilling or icebreaking operations
by approaching (2), watching (9), slowly moving away (7), or ignoring
(5) the activities; response was not evaluated for two bears. The
period of exposure to the operations was generally short because
precautions were taken to minimize disturbances, including adjusting
cruise courses away from bears. Similar precautions were followed in
1989 when 18 bears were sighted in the pack ice during the monitoring
program. The results of the 1990 monitoring program concluded that (1)
polar bear distributions were closely linked to the pack ice; (2) the
pack ice was near the active prospects for a relatively brief time; and
(3) the ice passing near active prospects contained relatively few
animals.
In 2006, four polar bears were sighted during three oil and gas
seismic surveys. All the bears were observed by seismic support
vessels. Three of the four bears were observed walking on ice, and one
animal was observed swimming. Two of the four reacted to the vessel.
All four sightings occurred between September 2 and October 3, 2006.
Five polar bear observations (11 individuals) were recorded during
the University of Texas at Austin's marine geophysical survey performed
by the USCG Healy in 2006. This survey was located in the northern
Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean. All bears were observed on the ice
between July 21 and August 19. No polar bears were in the water where
they could have received appreciable levels from operating airguns. The
closest point of approach distances of bears from the USCG Healy ranged
from 780 m to 2.5 km. One bear was observed approximately 575 m from a
helicopter conducting ice reconnaissance. Four of the groups exhibited
possible reactions to the helicopter or vessel, suggesting that
disturbances from seismic operations can be short-term and limited to
minor changes in behavior.
Documented impacts on polar bears by the oil and gas industry in
the Beaufort Sea during the past 30 years appear minimal. Polar bears
spend time on land, coming ashore to feed, den, or move to other areas.
Recently, a change in distribution of polar bears brought about by
changing climatic conditions has observed more bears than what has
occurred historically on land. At times, fall storms deposit bears
along the coastline where bears remain until the ice returns. For this
reason, polar bears have mainly been encountered at or near most
coastal and offshore production facilities, or along the roads and
causeways that link these facilities to the mainland. During those
periods, the likelihood of interactions between polar bears and
Industry activities increases. Most bears are observed within a mile
from the coastline. We expect that this use of habitat will occur along
the Chukchi Sea coastline as well.
The majority of actual impacts on polar bears in the Beaufort Sea
have resulted from direct human-bear encounters. Monitoring efforts by
Industry required under Beaufort Sea regulations for the incidental
take of polar bears documented various types of interactions between
polar bears and Industry. A total of 269 LOAs have been issued for
incidental (unintentional) take of polar bears in regard to oil and gas
activities between 1993 to 2005: Approximately 76 percent were for
exploration activities.
In 2004, the oil and gas industry reported 89 polar bear sightings
involving 113 individual bears. Polar bears were more frequently
sighted during the months of August to January. Seventy-four sightings
were of single bears and 15 sightings consisted of family groups.
Offshore oil facilities, Northstar and Endicott, accounted for 63
percent of all polar bear sightings, 42 percent and 21 percent,
respectively; documenting Industry activities that occur on or near the
Beaufort Sea coast have a greater possibility for encountering polar
bears than Industry activities occurring inland. Fifty-nine percent (n
= 53) of polar bear sightings consisted of observations of polar bears
traveling through or resting near the monitored areas without a
perceived reaction to human presence. Forty-one percent (n = 36) of
polar bear sightings involved Level B harassment, where bears were
deterred from industrial areas with no injury.
We expect the same trends we have seen in the Beaufort Sea to
continue in the Chukchi Sea. A higher frequency of polar bears will be
observed during the fall and early winter months; single bears will be
seen more than family groups; offshore facilities will encounter more
bears than onshore facilities; and a higher percentage of bears will be
observed passing through Industry areas than the percentage of bears
involved in deterrence activities.
Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal takes by Industry were
rare. Since 1968, there have been two documented cases of lethal take
of polar bears associated with oil and gas activities. In both
instances, the lethal take was reported to be in defense of human life.
In winter 1968-1969, an Industry employee shot and killed a polar bear.
In 1990, a female polar bear was killed at a drill site on the west
side of Camden Bay. In contrast, 33 polar bears were killed in the
Canadian Northwest Territories from 1976 to 1986 due to encounters with
Industry. Since the beginning of the incidental take program, which
includes measures that minimize impacts to the species, no polar bears
have been killed due to encounters associated with current Industry
activities on the North Slope. For this reason, Industry has requested
that these regulations cover only nonlethal, incidental take. We
anticipate this trend to continue in the Chukchi Sea.
4. Cumulative Effects
The Polar Bear Status Review describes cumulative effects of oil
and gas development on polar bears in Alaska. This document can be
found at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm. The
status review concentrated on oil and gas development in the Beaufort
Sea because of the established presence of the Industry in the Beaufort
Sea. The Service believes the conclusions of the status review will
apply to Industry activities in the Chukchi Sea during the regulatory
period as well.
In 2003, NRC published a description of cumulative effects oil and
gas development would have on polar bears and seals in Alaska. They
concluded that:
(1) ``Industrial activity in the marine waters of the Beaufort Sea
has been limited and sporadic and likely has not caused serious
cumulative effects to ringed seals or polar bears.'' Industry activity
in the Chukchi Sea will be limited to exploration activities, such as
seismic, drilling, and support vessels.
(2) ``Careful mitigation can help to reduce the effects of oil and
gas development and their accumulation, especially if there is no major
oil spill.'' The Service will be using mitigation measures similar to
those established in the Beaufort Sea to limit impacts of polar bears
in the Chukchi Sea. ``However, the effects of full-scale industrial
development off the North Slope would accumulate through the
displacement of polar bears and ringed seals from their habitats,
increased mortality, and decreased reproductive success.'' Full-scale
development of this nature will not occur during the
[[Page 30689]]
proposed regulatory period in the Chukchi Sea.
(3) ``A major Beaufort Sea oil spill would have major effects on
polar bears and ringed seals.'' One of the concerns for future oil and
gas development is for those activities that occur in the marine
environment due to the chance for oil spills to impact polar bears or
their habitats. No production activities are planned for the Chukchi
Sea during the duration of these proposed regulations. Oil spills as a
result of exploratory seismic activity could occur in the Chukchi Sea;
however, the probability of a large spill is expected to be minimal.
(4) ``Climatic warming at predicted rates in the Beaufort and
Chukchi sea regions is likely to have serious consequences for ringed
seals and polar bears, and those effects will accumulate with the
effects of oil and gas activities in the region.'' A detailed
description of climate change and its potential effects on polar bears
can be found at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm and http://www.fws.gov/. Climate change could alter polar
bear habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended duration of
open water, may preclude sea ice habitat use by restricting some bears
to coastal areas. The reduction of sea ice extent, caused by climate
change, may also affect the timing of polar bear seasonal movements
between the coastal regions and the pack ice. If the sea ice continues
to recede as predicted, it is hypothesized that polar bears may spend
more time on land rather than on sea ice; similar to what has been
recorded in the Hudson Bay. As with the Beaufort Sea, the challenge in
the Chukchi Sea will be predicting changes in ice habitat, and coastal
habitats in relation to changes in polar bear distribution and use of
habitat.
Due to changes in sea ice conditions, the Service anticipates that
there may be an increased use of terrestrial habitat in the fall period
by polar bears on the western coast of Alaska and an increased use of
terrestrial habitat by denning bears in the same area, which may expose
bears to Industry activity. The mitigation measures will be effective
in minimizing any additional effects attributed to seasonal shifts in
distributions of walruses or denning polar bears during the five-year
timeframe of the regulations. It is likely that, due to potential
seasonal changes in abundance and distribution of polar bears during
the fall, more frequent encounters may occur and that Industry may have
to implement mitigation measures more often, for example, increasing
polar bear deterrence events. In addition, if additional polar bear den
locations are detected within industrial activity areas, spatial and
temporal mitigation measures, including cessation of activities, may be
instituted more frequently during the five-year period of the rule.
(5) ``Unless studies to address the potential accumulation of
effects on North Slope polar bears or ringed seals are designed,
funded, and conducted over long periods of time, it will be impossible
to verify whether such effects occur, to measure them, or to explain
their causes.'' Future studies in the Chukchi Sea will examine polar
bear habitat use and distribution, reproduction, and survival relative
to a changing sea ice environment.
The proposed seismic surveys and exploratory drilling operations
identified by the petitioners are likely to result in some incremental
cumulative effects to polar bears through the potential exclusion or
avoidance of polar bears from feeding, resting, or denning areas and
disruption of associated biological behaviors. However, the impact
analysis of the likely range of effects and the likelihood of exposures
resulting in individual behavioral effects supports a conclusion that
the activities would result in no more than temporary disturbance
effects and less than negligible effects on the population.
5. Evaluation
The Service anticipates that potential impacts of seismic noise,
physical obstructions, human encounters, prey species, oil spills, and
cumulative effects on polar bears would be limited to short-term
changes in behavior that would have no long-term impact on individuals
nor impacts to the polar bear population. Individual polar bears may be
observed in the open water during offshore activities, but the majority
of the population will be found on the pack ice during this time of
year. It is unlikely that there will be any lethal take due to Industry
activities.
Potential impacts will be mitigated through various requirements
stipulated within LOAs. Mitigation measures that will be required for
all projects include a polar bear interaction plan, and a record of
communication with affected villages that may serve as the precursor to
a Plan of Cooperation with the village to mitigate effects of the
project on subsistence activities. Mitigation measures that will be
used on a case-by-case basis include the use of trained marine mammal
observers associated with offshore, marine activities, the use of den
habitat maps (where appropriate), the use of FLIR or polar bear scent-
trained dogs to determine the presence or absence of dens, timing of
the activity to limit disturbance around dens, the 1-mile buffer
surrounding known dens, and suggested work actions around known dens.
The Service implements certain mitigation measures based on need and
effectiveness for specific activities based largely on timing and
location. For example, the Service will implement different mitigation
measures for a 2-month-long onshore exploration project 20 miles
inland, than for a drilling project on the coastline. Based on past
monitoring information, bears are more prevalent in the coastal areas
than 20 miles inland. Therefore, the monitoring and mitigation measures
that the Service deems must be implemented to limit the disturbance to
bears and the measures deemed necessary to limit human-bear
interactions may differ.
Potential impacts of Industry waste products and oil spills suggest
that individual bears could be impacted by this type of disturbance
were it to occur. Depending on the amount of oil or wastes involved,
the timing and location of a spill, impacts could be short-term,
chronic, or lethal. In order for bear population reproduction or
survival to be impacted, a large-volume oil spill would have to take
place. The probability of a large oil spill occurring throughout the
duration of these proposed regulations (5 years) is small to the point
that a large oil spill is not expected to occur.
Mitigation measures imposed through MMS lease stipulations are
designed to avoid Level A harassment (injury), reduce Level B
harassment, reduce the potential for population-level significant
adverse effects on polar bears, and avoid an unmitigable adverse impact
on their availability for subsistence purposes. Additional mitigation
measures described in the proposed rule will help reduce the level of
Industry impacts to polar bears during the exploration activities
through the promulgation of incidental take regulations and the
issuance of LOAs with site-specific operating restrictions and
monitoring requirements, which will provide mitigation and protection
for polar bears. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed exploration
activities, especially as mitigated through the regulatory process, are
not expected to have more than negligible impacts on polar bears in the
Chukchi Sea and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of polar bears for subsistence uses.
[[Page 30690]]
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Subsistence
Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Walruses and polar bear have cultural and subsistence significance
to the Inupiat Eskimos inhabiting the north coast of Alaska. Four North
Slope communities are considered within the potentially affected area:
Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow. The open-water season
for oil and gas exploration activities coincides with peak walrus
hunting activities in these communities. The subsistence harvest of
polar bears can occur year round in the Chukchi Sea, depending on ice
conditions, with peaks usually occurring in spring and fall.
Noise and disturbances associated with oil and gas exploration
activities have the potential to adversely impact subsistence harvests
of walruses and polar bears by displacing animals beyond the hunting
range of these communities. Disturbances associated with exploration
activities could also heighten the sensitivity of animals to humans
with potential impacts to hunting success. Little information is
available to predict the effects of exploration activities on the
subsistence harvest of walruses and polar bears. Hunting success varies
considerably from year to year because of variable ice and weather
conditions.
The MMS and the petitioners believe that exploration activities can
be conducted in a manner that will not result in an adverse impact on
subsistence hunting of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea. Lease Sale
Area 193 includes a 25-mile coastal deferral zone, i.e., no lease sales
will be offered within 25 miles of the coast, which is expected to
reduce the impacts of exploration activities on subsistence hunting.
Offshore seismic exploration will be restricted prior to July 1 to
allow migrating marine mammals the opportunity to disperse from the
coastal zone. It is noted that support vessels and aircrafts are
expected to regularly transit the coastal deferral zone and have the
potential to disturb marine mammals in coastal hunting areas. MMS Lease
stipulations will require lessees to consult with the subsistence
communities of Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, and Point Hope prior to
submitting an Operational Plan to MMS for exploration activities. The
intent of these consultations is to identify any potential conflicts
between proposed exploration activities and subsistence hunting
opportunities in the coastal communities. Where potential conflicts are
identified, MMS may require additional mitigation measures as
identified by NMFS and USFWS through MMPA authorizations.
In addition to the existing lease stipulations and mitigation
measures described above, the Service would also develop additional
mitigation measures through the proposed incidental take regulations.
The following LOA stipulations, which will mitigate potential impacts
to subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting from the proposed
activities, would apply to incidental take authorizations:
1. Prior to receipt of an LOA, applicants will be required to
contact and consult with the communities of Point Hope, Point Lay,
Wainwright, and Barrow to identify any additional measures to be taken
to minimize adverse impacts to subsistence hunters in these
communities. A Plan of Cooperation (POC) will be developed if there is
concern from community members that the proposed activities will impact
subsistence uses of Pacific walruses or polar bears. The POC must
address how applicants will work with the affected Native communities
and what actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence
hunting of walruses and polar bears. The Service will review the POC
prior to issuance of the LOA to ensure that any potential adverse
effects on the availability of the animals are minimized.
2. Take authorization will not be granted for activities occurring
within a 40-mile radius of Barrow, Wainwright, Point Hope, or Point
Lay, unless expressly authorized by these communities through
consultations or through a POC. This condition is intended to limit
potential interactions between industry activities and subsistence
hunting in near-shore environments.
3. Offshore seismic exploration activities will be authorized only
during the open-water season, which will not exceed the period of July
1 to November 30. This condition is intended to allow communities the
opportunity to participate in subsistence hunts for polar bears without
interference and to minimize impacts to walruses during the spring
migration.
4. A 15-mile separation must be maintained between all active
seismic surveys and/or exploratory drilling operations to mitigate
cumulative impacts to resting, feeding, and migrating walruses.
Evaluation
Based on the best scientific information available and the results
of harvest data, including affected villages, the number of animals
harvested, the season of the harvests, and the location of hunting
areas, we find that the effects of the proposed exploration activities
in the Chukchi Sea region would not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of walruses and polar bears for taking for
subsistence uses during the period of the rule. In making this finding,
we considered the following: (1) Historical data regarding the timing
and location of harvests; (2) effectiveness of mitigation measures
stipulated by MMS-issued operational permits; (3) Service regulations
for obtaining an LOA at 50 CFR 18.118), which includes requirements for
community consultations and POCs, as appropriate, between the
applicants and affected Native communities; (4) effectiveness of
mitigation measures stipulated by Service issued LOAs; and (5)
anticipated effects of the applicants' proposed activities on the
distribution and abundance of walruses and polar bears.
Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Pacific Walruses
Based upon previous survey efforts in the region, we expect walrus
densities to be relatively low in areas of open water where most of the
proposed activities are expected to occur. Based upon our review of the
proposed activities, previous monitoring studies, as well as existing
and proposed mitigation measures, we conclude that, while incidental
take of walruses is reasonably likely to or reasonably expected to
occur as a result of the proposed activities, the anticipated takes
will be limited to nonlethal disturbances, affecting a relatively small
number of animals and that most disturbances will be relatively short-
term in duration. Furthermore, we do not expect the anticipated level
of take from the proposed activities to affect the rates of recruitment
or survival of the Pacific walrus population.
Polar Bears
Industry exploration activities have the potential to incidentally
take polar bears. These disturbances are expected to be nonlethal,
short-term behavioral reactions resulting in displacement, and are not
expected to have more than a minimal impact on individuals. Polar bears
could be displaced from the immediate area of activity due to noise and
vibrations. Alternatively, they could be attracted to sources of noise
and vibrations out of curiosity, which could result in human-bear
encounters. It is also possible that noise and human activity from
stationary sources, such as a drill rig, could keep females from
[[Page 30691]]
denning in the vicinity of the source if activities occur in the late
fall season when females initiate denning. Furthermore, there is a low
chance of injury to a bear during a take and it is unlikely that lethal
takes will occur. Contact with, or ingestion of, oil could also
potentially affect polar bears. Small oil spills are likely to be
cleaned up immediately and should have little chance of affecting polar
bears. The probability of a large spill occurring is small and the
impact of a large spill would depend on the distribution of the bears
at the time of the spill, the location and size of the spill, and the
success of clean-up measures. We do not expect the sum total of these
disturbances to affect the rates of recruitment or survival of the
Chukchi-Bering Sea polar bear population.
Conclusions
We conclude that any take reasonably likely to or reasonably
expected to occur as a result of projected activities will have no more
than a negligible impact on the Pacific walrus population or polar
bears inhabiting the specified geographic region from the (Chukchi/
Bering seas or Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear stocks) and will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of Pacific
walruses and polar bears for subsistence uses. Based on the previous
discussion, we propose the following findings regarding this action:
Impact on Species
The Service finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to
result from the effects of oil and gas related exploration activities
during the period of the rule, in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent western
coast of Alaska will have no more than a negligible impact on polar
bears and Pacific walruses in the Chukchi Sea Region. In making this
finding, we considered the best scientific information available, such
as: (1) The distribution of the species; (2) the biological
characteristics of the species; (3) the nature of proposed oil and gas
industry activities; (4) the potential effects of industry activities
on the species; (5) the documented impacts of industry activities on
the species; (6) mitigation measures that will minimize effects; and
(7) other data provided by monitoring programs in the Beaufort Sea
(1993-2006) and historically in the Chukchi Sea (1991-1996). We also
considered the specific Congressional direction in balancing the
potential for a significant impact with the likelihood of that event
occurring. The specific Congressional direction that justifies
balancing probabilities with impacts follows:
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 determination will be made based on the best available
scientific information [53 FR 8474, March 15, 1988; 132 Cong. Rec. S
16305 (October. 15, 1986)].
We reviewed the effects of the oil and gas industry activities on
Pacific walruses and polar bears, which included impacts from noise,
physical obstructions, human encounters, and small operational oil
spills. Based on our review of these potential impacts, past LOA
monitoring reports, and the biology and natural history of Pacific
walruses and polar bears, we conclude that any incidental take
reasonably likely to or reasonably expected to occur as a result of
projected activities will have a negligible impact on Pacific walrus
and polar bear populations. Furthermore, we do not expect these
disturbances to affect the rates of recruitment or survival for the
Pacific walrus and polar bear populations. These regulations do not
authorize lethal take and we do not anticipate any lethal take will
occur.
Our finding of ''negligible impact'' applies to oil and gas
exploration activities. Generic conditions are attached to each LOA.
These conditions minimize interference with normal breeding, feeding,
and possible migration patterns to ensure that the effects to the
species remain negligible. Generic conditions include: (1) These
regulations do not authorize intentional taking of Pacific walruses or
polar bears, or lethal incidental take; (2) For the protection of
pregnant polar bears during denning activities (den selection,
birthing, and maturation of cubs) in known and confirmed denning areas,
Industry activities will be restricted in specific locations during
specified times of the year; (3) Each activity covered by an LOA
requires a site-specific plan of operation and a site-specific polar
bear interaction plan. We may also add additional measures depending
upon site-specific and species-specific concerns. For example,
restrictions in denning areas will be applied on a case-by-case basis
after assessing each LOA request and could require pre-activity surveys
(e.g., aerial surveys, FLIR surveys, or polar bear scent-trained dogs)
to determine the presence or absence of denning activity and, in known
denning areas, may require enhanced monitoring or flight restrictions,
such as minimum flight elevations, if necessary. Monitoring
requirements and operating restrictions associated with offshore
drilling operations will include requirements for ice-scouting, surveys
for walruses and polar bears in the vicinity of active drilling
operations, requirements for marine mammal observers onboard drill
ships and ice breakers, and operational restrictions near polar bear
and walrus aggregations. The Service expects no significant impact to
these species as a result of these anticipated Industry activities.
We will analyze the required operation and polar bear interaction
plans to ensure that the level of activity and possible take will be
consistent with our finding that total incidental takes will have a
negligible impact on Pacific walruses and polar bears and, where
relevant, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of these species for subsistence uses.
As we have stated, changes in the sea ice due to climate change
could alter polar bear habitat. Extended duration of open water may
preclude sea ice habitat use by restricting some bears to coastal
areas. The reduction of sea ice extent, caused by climate change, may
also affect the timing of polar bear seasonal movements between the
coastal regions and the pack ice. If the sea ice continues to recede as
predicted, it is hypothesized that polar bears may spend more time on
land rather than on sea ice. As with the Beaufort Sea, the challenge in
the Chukchi Sea will be predicting changes in ice habitat, barrier
islands, and coastal habitats in relation to changes in polar bear
distribution and use of habitat.
Climate change over time is a major concern to the Service, and we
are currently involved in the collection of baseline data to help us
understand how the effects of climate change will be manifested in
bears inhabitating the Chukchi Sea region, such as the Chukchi/Bering
Sea polar bear population (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm). As we gain a better understanding of climate
change effects on walruses and polar bears, we will incorporate the
information in future actions. Ongoing studies include those led by the
USGS Alaska Science Center, in cooperation with the Service, to examine
polar bear habitat use, reproduction, and survival relative to a
changing sea-ice
[[Page 30692]]
environment. Specific objectives of the project include: polar bear
habitat availability and quality influenced by ongoing climate changes
and the response by polar bears; the effects of polar bear responses to
climate-induced changes to the sea-ice environment on body condition of
adults, numbers and sizes of offspring, and survival of offspring to
weaning (recruitment); and population age structure. The USGS Alaska
Science Center is also proposing to investigate changes in walrus
distributions and habitat use patterns in the Chukchi Sea in response
to diminishing sea-ice cover over the Outer Continental Shelf.
Impact on Subsistence Take
Based on the best scientific information available and the results
of harvest data, including affected villages, the number of animals
harvested, the season of the harvests, and the location of hunting
areas, we find that the effects of the proposed seismic activities in
the Chukchi Sea region would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of walruses and polar bears for taking for subsistence
uses during the period of the rule. In making this finding, we
considered the following: (1) Historical data regarding the timing and
location of harvests; (2) effectiveness of mitigation measures
stipulated by Service regulations for obtaining an LOA at 50 CFR
18.118, which includes requirements for community consultations and
Plans of Cooperation, as appropriate, between the applicants and
affected Native communities; (3) by MMS-issued operational permits; and
(4) anticipated 5-year effects of Industry proposed activities on
subsistence hunting.
Applicants must use methods and conduct activities identified in
their LOAs in a manner that minimizes to the greatest extent
practicable adverse impacts on Pacific walruses and polar bears, their
habitat, and on the availability of these marine mammals for
subsistence uses. Prior to receipt of an LOA, applicants will be
required to consult with the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the
communities of Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow to discuss
potential conflicts with subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting
caused by the location, timing, and methods of proposed operations.
Documentation of all consultations must be included in LOA
applications. Documentation must include meeting minutes, a summary of
any concerns identified by community members, and the applicant's
responses to identified concerns. If community concerns suggest that
the proposed activities could have an adverse impact on the subsistence
uses of these species, conflict avoidance issues must be addressed
through a POC.
Where prescribed, holders of LOAs will be required to have a POC on
file with the Service and on-site. The POC must address how applicants
will work with potentially affected Native communities and what actions
will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting
opportunities for walruses and polar bears. The POC must include:
1. A description of the procedures by which the holder of the LOA
will work and consult with potentially affected subsistence hunters.
2. A description of specific measures that have been, or will be
taken to avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of
walruses and polar bears, and to ensure continued availability of the
species for subsistence use.
The Service will review the POC to ensure any potential adverse
effects on the availability of the animals are minimized. The Service
will reject POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to ensure
that marine mammals will remain available for subsistence use.
If there is evidence during the five-year period of the regulations
that oil and gas activities are affecting the availability of walruses
or polar bears for take for subsistence uses, we will reevaluate our
findings regarding permissible limits of take and the measures required
to ensure continued subsistence hunting opportunities.
Monitoring and Reporting
The purpose of monitoring requirements is to assess the effects of
industrial activities on walruses and polar bears to ensure that take
is consistent with that anticipated in the negligible-impact and
subsistence use analyses, and to detect any unanticipated effects on
the species. Holders of LOAs will be required to have an approved,
site-specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan on file with
the Service and on site. Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plans
must be designed to enumerate the number of walruses and polar bears
encountered during authorized activities, estimate the number of
incidental takes which occurred during authorized activities, and
evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed mitigation measures.
Monitoring activities are summarized and reported in a formal
report each year. The applicant must submit an annual monitoring and
reporting plan at least 90 days prior to the initiation of a proposed
activity, and the applicant must submit a final monitoring report to us
no later than 90 days after the completion of the activity. We base
each year's monitoring objective on the previous year's monitoring
results.
We require an approved plan for monitoring and reporting the
effects of oil and gas industry exploration activities on walruses and
polar bears prior to issuance of an LOA. We require approval of the
monitoring results for continued authorization under the LOA.
Specific Stipulations for 2007 Shell Offshore Inc. IHA
For the 2007 open-water season, the IHA for Shell Offshore Inc.
(SOI), which is the only applicant for an incidental harassment
authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for the 2007
season, and whose activities are described in Shell's application at
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm, would include all of the
prohibitions listed in section 18.117 of this proposed rule and notice,
as well as any additional prohibitions and restrictions identified
through (1) a peer review of the marine mammal monitoring and
mitigation plan as required under section 18.118(a) of this proposed
rule and notice, and (2) a Plan of Cooperation developed through
consultations with the communities of Point Hope, Point Lay,
Wainwright, and Barrow as required under section 18.118(d) of this
proposed rule and notice. All of the monitoring, mitigation, and
reporting requirements in sections 18.118(a) through (h) of this
proposed rule and notice would also be included in the 2007 IHA for SOI
except for the mitigation measures listed under section 18.118(g)(4),
(5), and (6), and reporting requirements listed under section
18.118(h)(4). The mitigation measures listed in section 18.118(g)(4)
and (5) are not necessary because proposed activities are limited to
open-water seismic exploration after July 1, with no possibility of
encountering denning polar bears. The mitigation measure identified in
section 18.118(g)(6) would not be required because no offshore drilling
has being proposed. The reporting requirements identified in
18.118(g)(4) would not be required because no on-shore activity has
been proposed.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the
[[Page 30693]]
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods, as listed above
in ADDRESSES. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as
an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and
encryption. Please include ``Attn: [RIN 1018-AU41]'' and your name and
return address in your e-mail message. Please note that this e-mail
address will be closed out at the termination of the public comment
period. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able
to do so.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as
the following:
(1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
(2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity?
(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into
more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type and is
preceded by the symbol ``Sec.'' and a numbered heading; for example,
Sec. 18.113. When is this subpart effective?)
(5) Is the description of the rule in the ``Supplementary
Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the
proposed rule?
(6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able
to do so.
Required Determinations
NEPA Considerations
We have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in
conjunction with this proposed rulemaking. Subsequent to closure of the
comment period for this proposed rule, we will decide whether this is a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. For a copy of the draft
Environmental Assessment, contact the individual identified above in
the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Endangered Species Act
In light of the Service's recent proposed rule to list polar bears
as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (72 FR
1064, January 9, 2007), additional regulatory requirements may be
necessary for any agency actions affecting polar bears. Currently,
since polar bears are proposed for listing but not actually listed,
conferencing under section 7(a)(4) of the ESA is required if an agency
action is ``likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species
proposed to be listed under section 4 [of the ESA] or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be
designated for such species.'' Because this proposed rule does not pose
any likelihood of jeopardy, conferencing is not required.
Regulatory Planning and Review
This document has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).
This rule, if adopted, will not have an effect of $100 million or more
on the economy; will not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, environment, public health or
safety, of State, local, or tribal governments or communities; will not
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; does not alter the budgetary
effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights or obligations of their recipients; and does not raise novel
legal or policy issues.
Expenses will be related to, but not necessarily limited to, the
development of applications for regulations and LOAs, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting activities conducted during Industry oil
and gas operations, development of polar bear interaction plans, and
coordination with Alaska Natives to minimize effects of operations on
subsistence hunting. Compliance with the rule is not expected to result
in additional costs to Industry that it has not already been subjected
to for the previous 6 years. Realistically, these costs are minimal in
comparison to those related to actual oil and gas exploration
operations. The actual costs to Industry to develop the petition for
promulgation of regulations (originally developed in 2005) and LOA
requests do not exceed $500,000 per year, short of the ``major rule''
threshold that would require preparation of a regulatory impact
analysis. As is presently the case, profits would accrue to Industry;
royalties and taxes would accrue to the Government; and the rule would
have little or no impact on decisions by Industry to relinquish tracts
and write off bonus payments.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
We have determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major
rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act. The rule, if adopted, is also not likely to result in a
major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,
or government agencies or have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic or export markets.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also determined that this rule, if adopted, will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Oil
companies and their contractors conducting exploration, development,
and production activities in Alaska have been identified as the only
likely applicants under the regulations. Therefore, a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required. In addition, these potential
applicants have not been identified as small businesses and, therefore,
a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. The analysis for this
proposed rule is available from the individual identified above in the
section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
[[Page 30694]]
Takings Implications
This rule, if adopted, would not have takings implications under
Executive Order 12630 because it authorizes the nonlethal, incidental,
but not intentional, take of walruses and polar bears by oil and gas
industry companies and thereby exempts these companies from civil and
criminal liability as long as they operate in compliance with the terms
of their LOAs. Therefore, a takings implications assessment is not
required.
Federalism Effects
This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment under Executive Order 13132. The MMPA gives the Service the
authority and responsibility to protect walruses and polar bears.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
et seq.), this rule, if adopted, would not ``significantly or
uniquely'' affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is
not required. The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that this rulemaking will not impose a
cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities. This rule will not produce a Federal
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e., it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order
3225, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We
have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Alaska Native
tribes. Through the LOA process identified in the regulations, Industry
presents a Plan of Cooperation with the Native Communities most likely
to be affected and engages these communities in numerous informational
meetings.
Civil Justice Reform
The Departmental Solicitor's Office has determined that these
regulations do not unduly burden the judicial system and meet the
applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements. We
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
OMB has approved our collection of information for incidental take
of marine mammals during specified activities in the Beaufort Sea and
assigned OMB Control No. 1018-0070, which expires October 31, 2007. We
are revising this collection to include similar collections of
information for incidental take of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea.
We are submitting a request to OMB to approve this revised collection
for a 3-year term. We will use the information that we collect to
evaluate applications for specific incidental take regulations from the
oil and gas industry to determine whether such regulations, and
subsequent LOAs, should be issued; the information is needed to
establish the scope of specific incidental take regulations. The
information is also required to evaluate impacts of activities on
species or stocks of marine mammals and on their availability for
subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. It will ensure that applicants
considered all available means for minimizing the incidental take
associated with a specific activity.
We estimate that up to 20 companies will request LOAs and submit
monitoring reports annually for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas regions
covered by the specific regulations. We estimate that the total annual
burden associated with the request will be 1,625 hours during years
when applications for regulations are required and 1,025 hours when
regulatory applications are not required. This represents an average
annual estimated burden taken over a 3-year period, which includes the
initial 300 hours required to complete the request for specific
procedural regulations. We estimate that there will be an annual
average of six on-site observation reports per LOA. For each LOA
expected to be requested and issued subsequent to issuance of specific
procedural regulations, we estimate that 33.5 hours per project will be
invested (24 hours will be required to complete each request for an
LOA, approximately 1.5 hours will be required for onsite observation
reporting, and 8 hours will be required to complete each final
monitoring report). The public burden associated with the 3-year period
covered by this request for information collection authority is
estimated at 3,675 hours.
Title: Marine Mammals: Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During
Specified Activities Applications, 50 CFR 18, Subparts I and J.
OMB Number: 1018-0070.
Bureau form number: None.
Frequency of collection: Semiannual.
Description of respondents: Oil and gas industry companies.
Total Annual Responses: 202.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,625.
We invite interested members of the public and affected agencies to
comment on these proposed information collection and recordkeeping
activities. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether or not the collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Service, including whether or not the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for
this collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden
of the collection of information on respondents.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection
to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at
(202) 395-6566 (fax) or [email protected] (e-mail). Please
provide a copy of your comments to Hope Grey, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail); (703) 358-2269 (fax); or
[email protected] (e-mail).
Energy Effects
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule
would provide exceptions from the taking prohibitions of the MMPA for
entities engaged in the exploration of oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea
and adjacent western coast of Alaska. By providing certainty regarding
compliance with the MMPA, this rule will have a positive effect on
Industry and its activities. Although the rule requires Industry to
take a number of actions, these actions have been undertaken by
Industry for many years as part of similar past regulations. Therefore,
this rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use and does not constitute a significant energy
action. No Statement of Energy Effects is required.
[[Page 30695]]
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service proposes to
amend part 18, subchapter B of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below.
PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation of 50 CFR part 18 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. Amend part 18 by adding a new subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I--Nonlethal Taking of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears
Incidental to Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the Chukchi Sea
and Adjacent Coast of Alaska
Sec.
18.111 What specified activities does this subpart cover?
18.112 In what specified geographic region does this subpart apply?
18.113 When is this subpart effective?
18.114 How do I obtain a Letter of Authorization?
18.115 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of
Authorization requests?
18.116 What does a Letter of Authorization allow?
18.117 What activities are prohibited?
18.118 What are the monitoring, mitigation, and reporting
requirements?
18.119 What are the information collection requirements?
Sec. 18.111 What specified activities does this subpart cover?
Regulations in this subpart apply to the nonlethal incidental, but
not intentional, take of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar
bears by you (U.S. citizens as defined in Sec. 18.27(c)) while engaged
in oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent
western coast of Alaska.
Sec. 18.112 In what specified geographic region does this subpart
apply?
This subpart applies to the specified geographic region defined as
the continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean adjacent to western Alaska.
This area includes the waters (State of Alaska and Outer Continental
Shelf waters) and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, which encompasses all
waters north and west of Point Hope (68[deg]20'20'' N, -166[deg]
50'40'' W, BGN 1947) to the U.S.-Russia Convention Line of 1867, west
of a north-south line through Point Barrow (71[deg]23'29'' N, -
156[deg]28'30'' W, BGN 1944), and up to 200 miles north of Point
Barrow. The region also includes the terrestrial coastal land 25 miles
inland between the western boundary of the south National Petroleum
Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A) near Icy Cape (70[deg]20'00'', -
148[deg]12'00'') and the north-south line from Point Barrow. This
terrestrial region encompasses a portion of the Northwest and South
Planning Areas of the NPR-A. Figure 1 shows the area where this subpart
applies.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 30696]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JN07.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Sec. 18.113 When is this subpart effective?
Regulations in this subpart are effective from [effective date of
the final rule] through [date 5 years from the effective date of the
final rule] for year-round oil and gas exploration activities.
Sec. 18.114 How do I obtain a Letter of Authorization?
(a) You must be a U.S. citizen as defined in Sec. 18.27(c).
(b) If you are conducting an oil and gas exploration activity in
the specified geographic region described in Sec. 18.112 that may
cause the taking of Pacific walruses or polar bears and you want
nonlethal incidental take authorization under this rule, you must apply
for a Letter of Authorization for each exploration activity. You must
submit the application for authorization to our Alaska Regional
Director (see 50 CFR 2.2 for address) at least 90 days prior to the
start of the proposed activity.
(c) Your application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) A description of the activity, the dates and duration of the
activity, the specific location, and the estimated area affected by
that activity, i.e., a Plan of Operation.
(2) A site-specific plan to monitor the effects of the activity on
the behavior of Pacific walruses and polar bears encountered during the
ongoing activities, i.e., marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan.
Your monitoring program must document the effects to these marine
mammals and estimate the actual level and type of take. The monitoring
requirements will vary depending on the activity, the location, and the
time of year.
(3) A site-specific polar bear awareness and interaction plan,
i.e., polar bear interaction plan.
(4) A Plan of Cooperation to mitigate potential conflicts between
the proposed activity and subsistence hunting, where relevant. This
Plan of Cooperation must identify measures to minimize adverse effects
on the availability of Pacific walruses and polar bears for subsistence
uses if the activity takes place in or near a traditional subsistence
hunting area. Some of these measures could include, but are not limited
to, mitigation measures described in Sec. 18.118.
Sec. 18.115 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of
Authorization requests?
(a) We will evaluate each request for a Letter of Authorization
based on the specific activity and the specific geographic location. We
will determine whether the level of activity identified in the request
exceeds that analyzed by us in making a finding of negligible impact on
the species and a finding of no unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species for take for subsistence uses. If the level
of activity is greater, we will reevaluate our
[[Page 30697]]
findings to determine if those findings continue to be appropriate
based on the greater level of activity that you have requested.
Depending on the results of the evaluation, we may grant the
authorization, add further conditions, or deny the authorization.
(b) In accordance with Sec. 18.27(f)(5), we will make decisions
concerning withdrawals of Letters of Authorization, either on an
individual or class basis, only after notice and opportunity for public
comment.
(c) The requirement for notice and public comment in paragraph (b)
of this section will not apply if we determine that an emergency exists
that poses a significant risk to the well-being of species or stocks of
Pacific walruses or polar bears.
Sec. 18.116 What does a Letter of Authorization allow?
(a) Your Letter of Authorization may allow the nonlethal
incidental, but not intentional, take of Pacific walruses and polar
bears when you are carrying out one or more of the following
activities:
(1) Conducting geological and geophysical surveys and associated
activities;
(2) Drilling exploratory wells and associated activities; or
(3) Conducting environmental monitoring activities associated with
exploration activities to determine specific impacts of each activity.
(b) You must use methods and conduct activities identified in your
Letter of Authorization in a manner that minimizes to the greatest
extent practicable adverse impacts on Pacific walruses and polar bears,
their habitat, and on the availability of these marine mammals for
subsistence uses.
(c) Each Letter of Authorization will identify conditions or
methods that are specific to the activity and location.
Sec. 18.117 What activities are prohibited?
(a) Intentional take and lethal incidental take of Pacific walruses
or polar bears; and
(b) Any take that fails to comply with this part or with the terms
and conditions of your Letter of Authorization.
Sec. 18.118 What are the monitoring, mitigation, and reporting
requirements?
We require holders of Letters of Authorization to cooperate with us
and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the
impacts of oil and gas exploration activities on Pacific walruses or
polar bears.
(a) Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan. (1) Holders of
Letters of Authorization will be required to have a Service-approved,
site-specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan on file with
the Service and on site. Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plans
must enumerate the number of walruses and polar bears encountered
during specified exploration activities, estimate the number of
incidental takes that occurred during specified exploration activities,
and evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed mitigation measures.
(2) Applicants must fund an independent peer review of proposed
monitoring plans and draft reports of monitoring results. This peer
review will consist of independent reviewers who have knowledge and
experience in statistics, marine mammal behavior, and the type and
extent of the proposed operations. The applicant will provide the
results of these peer reviews to the Service for consideration in final
approval of marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plans and final
reports. The Service will distribute copies of marine mammal monitoring
and mitigation plans and reports to appropriate resource management
agencies and co-management organizations.
(b) Marine mammal observer. Holders of Letters of Authorization
must designate a qualified individual or individuals to observe,
record, and report on the effects of their activities on Pacific
walruses or polar bears. The person or persons designated to observe
and record the effects of exploration activities must be approved by
the Service.
(c) Polar bear interaction plan. Holders of Letters of
Authorization are required to have a polar bear interaction plan on
file with the Service and on site, and polar bear awareness training
will also be required of certain personnel. Polar bear interaction
plans will include:
(1) The type of activity and where and when the activity will
occur, i.e., a plan of operation;
(2) A food and waste management plan;
(3) Personnel training materials and procedures;
(4) Site at-risk locations and situations;
(5) A snow management plan;
(6) Polar bear observation and reporting procedures; and
(7) Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures.
(d) Minimizing effects on subsistence uses. Applicants must use
methods and conduct activities identified in their Letter of
Authorization in a manner that, to the greatest extent practicable,
minimizes adverse impacts on Pacific walruses and polar bears, their
habitat, and on the availability of these marine mammals for
subsistence uses.
(1) Prior to receipt of a Letter of Authorization, applicants must
consult with affected communities and appropriate marine mammal
management groups to discuss potential conflicts with subsistence
walrus and polar bear hunting caused by the location, timing, and
methods of proposed operations. These communities and groups are the
Eskimo Walrus Commission and the Alaska Nanuuq Commission and the
communities of Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow.
(2) In the application for a Letter of Authorization, applicants
must include documentation of all consultations. Documentation can
include meeting minutes, a summary of any concerns identified by
community members, and the applicant's responses to identified
concerns.
(3) If community concerns suggest that the proposed activities may
have an adverse impact on the subsistence uses of these species, the
applicant must address conflict avoidance issues through a Plan of
Cooperation as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) Plan of Cooperation. Where prescribed, holders of Letters of
Authorization will be required to have a Plan of Cooperation on file
with the Service and on site. The Plan of Cooperation must address how
applicants will work with potentially affected Native communities and
what actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence
hunting opportunities for walruses and polar bears beyond those
stipulations in the incidental take regulations and individual Letters
of Authorization.
(1) The Plan of Cooperation must include:
(i) A description of the procedures by which the holder of the
Letter of Authorization will work and consult with potentially affected
subsistence hunters; and
(ii) A description of specific measures that have been or will be
taken to avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of
walruses and polar bears and to ensure continued availability of the
species for subsistence use.
(2) The Service will review the Plan of Cooperation to ensure that
any potential adverse effects on the availability of the animals are
minimized. The Service will reject Plans of Cooperation if they do not
provide adequate safeguards to ensure the least practicable adverse
impact on the
[[Page 30698]]
availability of walruses and polar bears for subsistence use.
(f) Required mitigation measures. Mitigation measures that will be
required for all projects include:
(1) A Service-approved marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan
as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) A Service-approved polar bear interaction plan as described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) A record of communication with potentially affected villages to
mitigate adverse effects of the project on subsistence activities. This
record may be the precursor to a Plan of Cooperation as described in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(4) For marine vessels, a \1/2\-mile operational exclusion zone
around any walruses or polar bears observed on land or ice.
(5) For aircraft, a 1,000-foot minimum altitude within \1/2\ mile
of hauled out Pacific walruses.
(6) Polar bear monitors under the marine mammal monitoring and
mitigation plan if polar bears are known to frequent the area or known
polar bear dens are present in the area. Monitors will act as an early
detection system in regard to proximate bear activity to Industry
facilities.
(g) Possible additional mitigation measures. Mitigation measures
that we may require on a case-by-case basis as appropriate include:
(1) The use of marine mammal observers associated with all offshore
exploration activities.
(i) Marine mammal observers must have completed a marine mammal
observer training course approved by the Service. Operators may use
observers trained by third parties, may send crew for training
conducted by third parties, or may develop their own training program.
To obtain Service approval, all training programs must:
(A) Furnish to the Service a course information packet that
includes the name and qualifications (i.e., experience, training
completed, and educational background) of the instructor(s), the course
outline or syllabus, and course reference material;
(B) Furnish each trainee with a document verifying successful
completion of the course; and
(C) Provide the Service with names, affiliations, and dates of
course completion of trainees.
(ii) The training course must include the following elements:
(A) Overview of the Marine Mammal Protection Act as it relates to
seismic acquisition and protection of marine mammals;
(B) Overview of seismic acquisition operations;
(C) Overview of mitigation measures and the marine mammal
monitoring program; and
(D) Discussion of the role and responsibilities of the marine
mammal observer, including:
(1) Regulatory requirements (why the observer is here and what that
person does);
(2) Authority of the marine mammal observer to call for shut-down
of seismic acquisition operations;
(3) Assigned duties;
(4) Reporting of violations and coercion;
(5) Identification of arctic marine mammal species, including
various age and sex classes of Pacific walruses;
(6) Cues and search methods for locating marine mammals; and
(7) Data collection and reporting requirements.
(2) Mitigation measures for offshore seismic exploration
activities. Such mitigation measures will include:
(i) Spacing of activities. Operators must maintain a minimum
spacing of 15 miles between all seismic-source vessels and/or
exploratory drilling operations to mitigate cumulative impacts to
resting, feeding, and migrating walruses.
(ii) Exclusion zone. An exclusion zone at and below the sea surface
within a radius defined by a 180-decibel (dB) isopleth (for walruses)
and a 190-dB isopleth (for polar bears) from the center of the sound
source must be free of walruses and polar bears before the survey can
begin and must remain free of walruses and polar bears during the
seismic survey.
(iii) Monitoring of the exclusion zone. Trained marine mammal
observers will monitor the area around the survey for the presence of
walruses and polar bears to maintain a marine mammal-free exclusion
zone and monitor for avoidance or take behaviors.
(iv) Ramp-up procedures. For all seismic surveys, including airgun
testing, use the following ramp-up procedures to allow marine mammals
to depart the exclusion zone before seismic surveying begins:
(A) Visually monitor the exclusion zone and adjacent waters for the
absence of polar bears and walruses for at least 30 minutes before
initiating ramp-up procedures. If no polar bears or walruses are
detected, you may initiate ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate ramp-up
procedures at night or when you cannot visually monitor the exclusion
zone for marine mammals.
(B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single airgun. The
preferred airgun to begin with should be the smallest airgun, in terms
of energy output (dB) and volume (in3).
(C) Continue ramp-up by gradually activating additional airguns
over a period of at least 20 minutes, but no longer than 40 minutes,
until the desired operating level of the airgun array is obtained.
(D) Immediately shut down all airguns and cease seismic operations
at any time a polar bear or walrus mammal is detected entering or
within the exclusion zone. You may recommence seismic operations and
ramp-up of airguns only when the exclusion zone has been visually
inspected for at least 30 minutes to ensure the absence of walruses and
polar bears.
(E) You may reduce the source level of the airgun array, using the
same shot interval as the seismic survey, to maintain a minimum source
level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (rms) for the duration of certain
activities. By maintaining the minimum source level, you will not be
required to conduct the 30-minute visual clearance of the exclusion
zone before ramping back up to full output.
(1) Activities that are appropriate for maintaining the minimum
source level include turns between transect lines, when a survey using
the full array is being conducted immediately prior to the turn and
will be resumed immediately after the turn, and unscheduled,
unavoidable maintenance of the airgun array that requires the
interruption of a survey to shut down the array. The survey should be
resumed immediately after the repairs are completed.
(2) There may be other occasions when reducing the source level of
the airgun array is appropriate, but use of the minimum source level to
avoid the 30-minute visual clearance of the exclusion zone is only for
events that occur during a survey using the full power array. The
minimum sound source level is not to be used to allow a later ramp-up
after dark or in conditions when ramp-up would not otherwise be
allowed.
(v) Field verification. Before conducting the survey, the operator
must verify the radii of the exclusion/safety zones within real-time
conditions in the field. Field-verification techniques must use valid
techniques for determining propagation loss. When moving a seismic-
survey operation into a new area, the operator must verify the new
radii of the zones by applying a sound-propagation series.
(3) Limits on take authorization. (i) We will not issue take
authorization for seismic surveys or exploratory drilling activities
within a 40-mile radius of Barrow, Wainwright, Point Hope, or
[[Page 30699]]
Point Lay, unless expressly authorized by the community through
consultation or a Plan of Cooperation as described in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(ii) We will limit authorization of offshore exploration activities
to the open-water season, which will not exceed the period of July 1 to
November 30.
(4) Efforts to locate dens. Industry must use Forward Looking
Infrared (FLIR) imagery, polar bear scent-trained dogs, or both to
determine presence or absence of maternal polar bear dens in areas of
activity.
(5) Efforts to minimize disturbance around dens. Industry must
restrict the timing of the activity to limit disturbance around polar
bear dens. If known occupied dens are located within an operator's area
of activity, we will require a 1-mile operational exclusion buffer
around the den to limit disturbance or require that the operator
conduct activities after the female bears emerge from their dens. We
will review these requirements for extenuating circumstances on a case-
by-case basis.
(6) Mitigation measures for offshore drilling operations. Such
mitigation measures will include requirements for ice-scouting, surveys
for walruses and polar bears in the vicinity of active drilling
operations, marine mammal observers onboard drill-ships and ice
breakers, and operational restrictions near walrus and polar bear
aggregations.
(h) Reporting requirements. Reporting requirements for exploratory
activities will include:
(1) Offshore seismic monitoring reports. In order to accommodate
various vessels' bridge practices and preferences, vessel operators and
observers may design data reporting forms in whatever format they deem
convenient and appropriate. At a minimum, the following items must be
recorded and included in reports to the Service:
(i) Observer effort report. The operator must prepare an observer
effort report for each day during which seismic acquisition operations
are conducted. On a weekly basis, provide the Service an observer
effort report that includes:
(A) Vessel name.
(B) Observers' names and affiliations.
(C) Survey type (e.g., site, 2D, 3D).
(D) Minerals Management Service Permit Number (for ``off-lease
seismic surveys'') or Outer Continental Shelf Lease Number (for ``on-
lease seismic surveys'').
(E) Date.
(F) Time and latitude/longitude when daily visual survey began.
(G) Time and latitude/longitude when daily visual survey ended.
(H) Average environmental conditions while on visual survey,
including:
(1) Wind speed and direction;
(2) Sea state (glassy, slight, choppy, rough or Beaufort scale);
(3) Swell (low, medium, high or swell height in meters);
(4) Overall visibility (poor, moderate, good); and
(5) Sea ice concentrations (None, Scattered flows <10%, >10%).
(ii) Survey report. The operator must prepare a survey report for
each day during which seismic acquisition operations are conducted and
the airguns are being discharged. On a weekly basis, provide the
Service a survey report that includes:
(A) Vessel name.
(B) Survey type (e.g., site, 2D, 3D).
(C) Date and time.
(D) Time pre-ramp-up survey begins.
(E) Whether walruses or polar bears were seen during pre-ramp-up
survey.
(F) Time ramp-up begins.
(G) Whether walruses or polar bears were seen during ramp-up.
(H) Time airgun array is operating at the desired intensity.
(I) Radius of 180- and 190-dB exclusion zones.
(J) Whether walruses or polar bears were seen during the survey.
(K) If walruses or polar bears were seen, whether any action taken
(i.e., survey delayed, guns shut down).
(L) Reason that walruses or polar bears might not have been seen
(e.g., swell, glare, fog).
(M) Time airgun array stops firing.
(2) Walrus observation report. The operator must prepare a walrus
observation report for each walrus sighting made by marine mammal
observers and submit these reports to the Service on a weekly basis.
Information within the observation report will include, but is not
limited to:
(A) Vessel/aircraft name.
(B) Survey type (e.g., 2D, 3D).
(C) Date and time.
(D) Water depth (in meters).
(E) Ice conditions (none, <10% concentration, >10% concentration).
(F) Watch status (Were you on watch or was this sighting made
opportunistically by you or someone else?).
(G) Observer or person who made the sighting.
(H) Latitude/longitude of vessel.
(I) Bearing of vessel.
(J) Bearing and estimated range to animal(s) at first sighting.
(K) Species sighted.
(L) Estimated certainty of identification (whether the
identification is certain, most likely, or a best guess).
(M) Total number of animals.
(N) Substrate (hauled out on ice, swimming in water, both).
(O) Estimated age and sex class of observed animals.
(P) General description of the animals.
(Q) Compass direction of the animal's travel.
(R) Direction of the animal's travel related to the vessel (drawing
preferably).
(S) Behavior (as explicit and detailed as possible; note any
observed changes in behavior).
(T) Whether airguns were firing.
(U) Closest distance (in meters) to animals from center of airgun
or airgun array (whether firing or not).
(3) Polar bear observation report. The operator must report, within
24 hours, all observations of polar bears during any Industry
operation. Information within the observation report will include, but
is not limited to:
(i) Date of observation.
(ii) Time of observation.
(iii) Observer name.
(iv) Contact telephone number and e-mail address.
(v) Location, with latitude, longitude, and datum.
(vi) Weather conditions at the time of observation.
(vii) Visibility.
(viii) Number of bears: sex and age.
(ix) Estimated closest point of approach for bears from personnel
and facilities.
(x) Possible attractants present.
(xi) Bear behavior.
(xii) A description of the encounter.
(xiii) Duration of the encounter.
(xiv) Agency contacts.
(4) Watch logs. Observers may incorporate activities within the
coast of the geographic region into daily polar bear watch logs.
(5) Notification of incident report. The operator must report any
violation of conditions of the Letter of Authorization, incidental
lethal take, or observations of walruses or polar bears within the
prescribed zone of ensonification within 24 hours.
(i) For vessel operations, the notification of incident report must
include:
(A) Company conducting the seismic work.
(B) Vessel name.
(C) Name of the Marine Mammal Observer (MMO).
(D) MMO employer.
(E) Type of vessel (support or seismic).
(F) Whether airguns were firing, and if so, how many.
(G) Zone of ensonification used (in meters).
[[Page 30700]]
(H) Visibility distance (in kilometers).
(I) General weather.
(J) Whether ice was present, and if so, the estimated percent of
ice cover.
(K) Date and time (Alaska standard time).
(L) GPS location (decimal degrees in WGS84).
(M) Distance when first observed from vessel (in meters) and
behavior.
(N) Distance when last observed from vessel (in meters) and
behavior.
(O) Minimum distance during encounter.
(P) Duration of encounter.
(Q) Whether the animal responded or reacted to the vessel.
(R) A description of the encounter.
(S) Whether shutdown occurred.
(T) Time elapsed before ramp up (in minutes).
(U) Number and composition of animals involved.
(ii) For fixed-winged aircraft and helicopter operations, the
notification of incident report must include:
(A) Aircraft identification.
(B) Aircraft type.
(C) Name of pilot or observer.
(D) Altitude and direction of aircraft.
(E) Number and composition of animals involved.
(F) Minimum distance during encounter.
(G) Whether the animal responded or reacted to the aircraft.
(H) Date and time (Alaska standard time) of incident.
(I) GPS location (decimal degrees in WGS84).
(J) A description of the encounter.
(K) Whether ice was present, and if so, the estimated percent of
ice cover.
(L) General weather.
(M) Visibility distance (in kilometers).
(6) After-action monitoring report. Holders of a Letter of
Authorization must submit a report to our Alaska Regional Director
(Attn: Marine Mammals Management Office) within 90 days after
completion of activities. Reports must include, at a minimum, the
following information:
(i) Dates, times, and types of activity.
(ii) Dates, times, and locations of activity as related to the
monitoring activity.
(iii) Results of the monitoring activities, including an estimated
level of take.
(iv) Dates and locations of all Pacific walrus and polar bear
observations as related to the operation activity when the sighting
occurred.
(v) A weekly summary of the hours and distance traveled during
observation periods.
Sec. 18.119 What are the information collection requirements?
(a) The Office of Management and Budget has approved the collection
of information contained in this subpart and assigned control number
1018-0070. You must respond to this information collection request to
obtain a benefit pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. We will use the information to
(1) Evaluate the application and determine whether or not to issue
specific Letters of Authorization and
(2) Monitor impacts of activities conducted under the Letters of
Authorization.
(b) You should direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any
other aspect of this requirement to the Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Mail Stop 222 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC
20240.
Dated: May 25, 2007.
Todd Willens,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7-10509 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P