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

We find that AOGA's specific activities would result in a negligible impact on the SBS stock of polar bears. For our negligible impact determination, we consider the following:

1. The number of polar bears that use the terrestrial habitat of the North Slope is small in relation to the entire SBS polar bear stock. The distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears indicate that relatively few polar bears will occur in the specified areas of activity at any particular time and, therefore, few polar bears are likely to be affected.

2. Mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts. Under these ITRs, LOA holders will be required to adopt monitoring requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential impacts of their operations on polar bears. Den detection surveys for polar bears and adaptive mitigation and management responses based on real-time monitoring information will be used to avoid or minimize interactions with polar bears and, therefore, limit potential disturbance of these animals.

3. The monitoring data, analyses, and rulemakings dating back to the early 1990s, as detailed in the Request. Based on the monitoring and reporting conducted by the oil and gas industry under the current and prior ITRs, the FWS considered its substantial database of information regarding the scope, frequency, and anticipated effects of interactions that may occur incidental to oil and gas activities in and near the Beaufort Sea. Since the 1990s, the FWS has consistently concluded that the incidental take authorized under Beaufort Sea ITRs has no more than a “negligible impact” on polar bears.

4. The estimates in the Request, based on the five highest incidental take years from the most recent 10-year period of observational data, include an annual average of 24 Level B harassments of 24 polar bears on the surface, plus an estimated 3 Level B harassments of 3 denning bears at some point during the 5-year period. The estimates in the Request assess the probability of Level A harassment as “exceedingly low (less than one over the 5-year period)” and do not estimate that any lethal take will occur during the 5-year period noting that “[i]ncidental lethal take of a polar bear due to oil and gas activities in the petition area has never been documented.”

5. The majority of human-polar bear interactions will result in no effect or short-term, temporary behavioral changes. When developing estimates for Level B harassment, the FWS has

determined that there is a 99 percent chance that at least 88 percent of encounters with polar bears on the surface in the open-water season and 80 percent of encounters with polar bears on the surface in the ice season are expected to result in no significant change in a biologically important behavior, and we do not consider those interactions to result in a take. The remainder of polar bear encounters on the surface are anticipated to result in short-term, temporary changes in behavior that are indicative of Level B harassment of the animal.

6. Based on primary literature (Patil et al 2022 and the USGS den catalog, few dens would occur in proximity to Industry activities. Roughly half of SBS polar bear dens are not found on land, but rather on the sea ice, and would not overlap spatially with Industry activities. Denning simulations show that on average six dens are estimated to occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the specified activities during each of the next five denning seasons. This number represents roughly 5 percent of the approximately 120 SBS polar bear dens that are established each year. The mitigation measures included in the Request reduce the number of dens whose occupants are estimated to be disturbed by the specified activities to 2.4 percent of the land-based dens and 1.2 percent of all dens in the SBS polar bear stock (figure 2, below). [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC26.001

7. The FWS predictive model estimates 13 cubs may experience Level A harassment as a result of the specified activities over a period of 5 years. Even if 13 cubs actually experience Level A harassment over 5 years, that would not alter the distribution of cub survival probabilities for the SBS polar bear stock. The impact of these estimated harassment events can be quantified by first evaluating the estimated survival consequence to individual cubs and then estimating associated changes in overall survival rates for the stock. Lacking data regarding individual cub survival, we conduct this analysis using the metric of litter survival, which has been estimated by relevant empirical studies included in the supplemental information on https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2026-0694). While the metric does not account for partial litter loss (because a sow observed with one cub in the spring is assumed to have had an original litter size of one cub), it also cannot account for natural litter sizes of zero (because a sow observed with no cubs in spring is assumed to have lost a litter). Because this metric is derived from the available scientific studies (i.e., Rode et al 2018, Andersen et al 2024,), and because it is not biased in only one direction, we feel it is the most appropriate available metric to reflect potential impacts on cub survival.

The denning analysis model allows us to compare the probability of litter survival using both the undisturbed and disturbed (if applicable) emergence and departure dates of simulated dens. With this information, we can estimate the average decrease in survival probability that can be attributed to simulated Industry disturbance. From the model, the mean probability of litter survival for dens experiencing Level A harassment decreased 12.6 percent after simulated disturbance (pre-disturbance 85.5 percent, post-disturbance 72.9 percent).

When examining the potential impact of 13 Level A harassment events at the stock level (as estimated by the model), we consider the low percentage of SBS dens with cubs that the model anticipates will experience Level A harassment. Given that 2.4 percent of land-based dens within the SBS stock

are anticipated to experience Level A harassment in any year, the modeled 12.6 percent decrease does not alter or shift the overall survival probability distribution for the SBS stock (figure 3, below). Further, if we examine the modeled distribution of survival rates for the entire land-based SBS stock, counting for potential decrease in survival due to both potential Level A harassment and potential lethal take via den abandonment (which is not anticipated), the model shows no more than a minor change in distribution, as is illustrated by the similarities of the graphs in figure 3.

In the most impactful year of the ITR, we there will be an average of 54 litters with cubs at the start of the year (some sows will naturally have no cubs). After applying the undisturbed survival rates to these simulated dens, we estimate an average of 46.7 dens will have at least one surviving cub in the spring. The estimate from the model decreases to an average of 46.4 dens when accounting for disturbance, indicating the effect of disturbance at the stock level is statistically insignificant. Further, it is important to acknowledge that roughly half of SBS polar bear dens are not found on land, but rather on the sea ice, and would not overlap spatially with the specified activities. BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC26.002

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

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

a 5-year period is 0.43. The median number of lethal takes in both the annual and 5-year aggregated modeling outputs was zero. These results, coupled with the lack of observed den abandonment, supports our finding that lethal take due to sow abandonment of the den and litter during the early denning period is unlikely.

9. We do not anticipate that loss of a cub or litter will adversely affect annual recruitment rates at the stock level. Under the ITRs, anticipated incidental Level A harassment only involves cubs during the denning period. Impacts to denning females, the demographic group most important to annual recruitment, would only involve take by Level B harassment. Therefore, the immediate number of potentially available reproductive females that would contribute to recruitment for the SBS polar bear stock would remain unaffected if a den disturbance were to result in the mortality of the cubs. If a den disturbance were to result in the mortality of the entire litter, the female would be available to breed during the next mating season and could produce another litter during the next denning season.

Cubs inherently cannot contribute to annual rates of recruitment until they have reached sexual maturity because in wildlife biology the concept of recruitment speaks to individuals entering the reproductive population. Further, while adult male bears would contribute to the overall number of individuals in the population, they do not contribute significantly to annual rates of recruitment. While a very small decrease in the number of males in a breeding population may be a concern if the stock was at risk of inbreeding depression or Allee effects (e.g., decrease in population size or individual fitness in response to low population density), this is not the case in the SBS polar bear stock. Female cubs have the opportunity to reach sexual maturity and contribute to annual recruitment; however, natural rates of survival fluctuate in the SBS polar bear stock. Death of one female cub less than once per year is within the natural variability found within the SBS polar bear stock and cannot be reasonably expected to cause an adverse impact on annual rates of recruitment.

Based on the low percentage of SBS stock polar bears potentially being removed from the stock even if den disturbance were to result in the mortality of the cubs, and the expectation that the number of potentially available reproductive females that would contribute to recruitment would be unaffected by den disturbance, the FWS does not anticipate that the loss of a cub or litter would adversely affect annual recruitment rates at the population level for the SBS stock of polar bears.

We reviewed the effects of Industry activities on polar bears, including impacts from surface interactions, aircraft overflights, marine vessel traffic, and den disturbance. Based on our review of these potential impacts, past monitoring reports, and the biology and natural history of polar bears, we conclude that any incidental take reasonably likely to occur as a result of specified activities would be limited to short-term behavioral disturbances and temporary reductions in fitness that would not affect the annual rates of recruitment or survival for the SBS stock of polar bears.

The FWS has analyzed the potential impact of the proposed taking in light of other factors affecting SBS polar bears, including but not limited to subsistence harvest and other human-caused removals, as well as other ongoing and authorized oil and gas activities (which, like the specified activities considered in this ITR, are anticipated to affect SBS polar bears via limited short-term behavioral disturbances and temporary reductions in fitness). As we gain a better understanding of these and other effects, we will incorporate the information in future authorizations. While a variety of ongoing factors pose challenges to SBS polar bears, we do not expect them to influence the degree of impacts (i.e., short-term behavioral responses and temporary reductions in fitness) resulting from the specified activities or incidental harassment to be authorized over the next 5 years under the ITRs.

Our analysis indicates that the impacts of these specified activities over 5 years cannot be reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the SBS stock of polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Similarly, the estimated impacts described in AOGA's Request, which are lower than those of the FWS predictive model, cannot be reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the SBS stock of polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. We find that the total of the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the SBS stock of polar bears.

When examining the potential impact of 20 takes by Level B harassment of Pacific walrus at the stock level, we consider the nature of the potential harassment, which is expected to be limited to temporary disturbance of behavioral patterns that will not impact the recruitment or survival of the effected individuals. The potential effects of greatest concern to walrus are associated with human-induced stampedes at walrus coastal haulout sites. Hauled out walruses tend to be in close physical contact, with groups ranging from a few animals up to tens of thousands of individuals--the largest aggregations occurring at land haulouts (Gilbert 1999, Monson et al. 2013, USFWS 2017). Intra- specific trauma at coastal haulouts is a known source of injury and mortality (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). The risk of stampede-related injuries increases with the number of animals hauled out and with the duration spent on coastal haulouts. Calves and young are the most vulnerable to suffer injuries and/or mortality (USFWS 2017). There has never been a reported large coastal haulout site located in the South Beaufort Sea, nor is there any reason to suspect a large coastal haulout may occur in the near future given the extremely low density and transient nature of walrus in the region. Therefore, the FWS does not anticipate that the conjectural or speculative impacts associated with these specified activities warrant a finding of non-negligible impact or otherwise preclude promulgation of these ITRs.

Based on information from past community consultations, as well as our analysis of hunting area locations, which did not identify any overlap between hunting areas and the specified activities--and the best scientific information available--including monitoring data from similar activities, we find that take caused by the specified activities in the specified geographic region will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of polar bears or walruses for taking for Alaska Native subsistence uses during the specified timeframe.

While SBS polar bears and walruses represent a small portion, in terms of the number of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik communities, their harvest is important to Alaska Natives. However, the majority of project activities are within an established industrial area where harvest is not conducted. Walrus harvest from Nuiqsut and Kaktovik is opportunistic, and none of the walrus harvests for Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, or Kaktovik from 2014 through 2024 have occurred within the area of specified activities. The FWS has not received any reports and is not aware of

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

These ITRs must set forth, among other things, means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat. We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of mitigation measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the specified activities; and the best available scientific information, including monitoring data during Industry activities in the specified geographic region. The FWS did not identify any additional (i.e., not already included in the Request), practicable mitigation measures to decrease the potential impact of the specified activities on walruses or their habitat, but we determined one additional mitigation measure noted below would decrease the potential impact of the specified activities on polar bears.

The additional mitigation measure is a larger 1.6 km (1 mi) mitigation zone surrounding polar bear sows and their cub(s) at den sites. Under this measure, LOA holders would consult with the FWS on any activities that need to occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a den location. The FWS would work cooperatively with LOA holders to identify mitigation measures, such as decreased and slowed traffic, personnel education, and increased monitoring, to decrease the potential impact of activities in the mitigation zone on polar bears.

We find that the mitigation measures already included within AOGA's Request will ensure the least practicable adverse impact on walruses and their habitat, and that the mitigation measures already included within AOGA's Request and the additional mitigation measure described above will ensure the least practicable adverse impact on polar bears and their habitat.

A number of mitigation measures were considered but determined to be not practicable. These measures are listed below:

Require a third AIR survey of polar bear denning habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of onshore winter activities in the high-density denning zone--The FWS recognizes the important role that AIR surveys play in mitigating adverse impacts to polar bear. Per the Request, surveyed locations that yield heat signatures that indicate the possible presence of a maternal polar bear den will be re-surveyed, which could involve follow-up surveys via AIR, handheld or vehicle- mounted infrared cameras or binoculars, or the use of UAS in coordination with FWS. FWS anticipates that the added value of a third AIR survey will be less than that of the initial two surveys, as FWS anticipates fewer previously unidentified dens to be identified. While there are meaningful differences between the circumstances where three AIR surveys required and conducted in the 2021-2026 ITR and the three AIR surveys proposed as an additional mitigation measure in the proposed ITR, no additional dens were detected by the third AIR surveys conducted under the 2021-2026 ITR. With additional AIR surveys, the corresponding burden on operators increases, particularly with the specific time restrictions on all three AIR surveys in the proposed ITR. The undue logistical, human safety and economic burden is driven by a number of factors, including the availability of aircraft, specialized equipment, pilots, and personnel to monitor the equipment, and the requirement to conduct the additional AIR survey in a short time period in a harsh operational environment with weather constraints. The requester has explained that a single AIR survey involves a crew of three to four people flying in a small aircraft at night (or periods of little or no daylight), flying approximately 400 miles or more over the course of 4-5 hours in remote areas of the Arctic. The surveys occur during times of the year when temperatures can reach -55 degrees Farenheit below zero. These temperatures and nighttime operations raise human safety considerations, which include the potential that a search and rescue effort for a downed aircraft and personnel would place the safety of the personnel conducting those operations at risk.

The requester has further explained that conducting AIR surveys on- schedule can be very difficult because of the harsh Arctic weather and the logistical challenges associated with carrying out activities in the Arctic. Planned surveys can be delayed for days and often can only be conducted during short windows of opportunity. That can be challenging enough for a single survey, or even two surveys, but it can be particularly constraining for three surveys. Surveys also require significant advance planning, including the transport of crews from Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the contiguous U.S. to the Arctic, the hiring and scheduling of a double crew of pilots and maintenance personnel, rental of short-term hanger space, deployment of specialized resources and equipment from out-of-state, and on-the-ground provisions in the Arctic. Additionally, the requester provided an example from one of its members that the third survey requirement caused the cancellation of freight and operations flights to prioritize completion of these surveys. In light of all of these considerations, the FWS concludes that a general third AIR survey is not practicable.

Require use of helicopters for AIR surveys--Use of helicopters to survey active polar bear dens might lead to greater levels of disturbance and take compared to fixed-wing aircraft. This statement is supported by greater harassment rates for helicopter overflights compared to fixed-wing overflights determined in the aircraft take estimate analysis. Additionally, there is no published data to indicate increased den detection efficacy of helicopter AIR.

Require optimal weather conditions for AIR surveys-- Appropriate weather conditions for AIR surveys are incorporated into the Request and an FWS-required mitigation measure. Additional restrictions would not be practicable for the specified activities due to the available timeframe to complete AIR surveys.

Ground all flights if they must fly below 457 m (1,500 ft)--Requiring all

aircraft to maintain an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) at all times is not practicable as some operations may require flying below that level to perform necessary inspections or maintain safety of flight crew. Aircraft are required to fly above 457 m (1,500 ft) at all times within 805 m (0.5 mi) of an observed polar bear or walrus unless there is an emergency.

Require speed restrictions for all aircraft operations-- Requiring all aircraft to operate below a specific speed limit is not practicable as some operations may require speeds above the specified speed limit to maintain safety of the flight crew during various weather conditions. Additionally, aircraft operating at lower speeds may increase the duration of impact and potentially result in greater levels of disturbance to polar bears or walruses.

Spatial and temporal restrictions on surface activity-- Some spatial and temporal restrictions of operations were included in AOGA's Request; however, additional restrictions would not be practicable for the specified activities based on other regulatory and safety requirements, and the need to meet project objectives such as acquiring sufficient data.

Operational exclusion zone around all known polar bear denning habitat--A 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone around all known polar bear denning habitat is not practicable as much of AOGA's specified survey area occurs within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat; thus, to exclude all areas within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat would preclude many project activities from occurring.

Prohibit driving over high relief areas, embankments, or stream and river crossings--In their Request AOGA has committed to avoid operating in potential den locations. This includes providing crews GPS displays that highlight areas precluded from surface travel, training crews to recognize denning habitat and signs of animal activity, and scouting ahead with smaller/lighter equipment to evaluate travel routes before larger equipment arrives. Most travel will avoid embankments and steep slopes that polar bears utilize for denning, but scouting activity helps to further identify areas to avoid. To completely avoid these types of areas would likely cause personnel to drive further away from established operational areas and unnecessarily create additional safety concerns. Furthermore, other mitigation measures to minimize impact on denning habitats are included and will minimize the risk imposed by driving over high relief areas, embankments, or stream and river crossings. Lastly, the probability of a den being run over by equipment during the specified activities is exceedingly low each year of the ITRs, and this probability will be further mitigated by AIR surveys at the beginning of the specified activities to detect dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the activities.

Use of a broader definition of “denning habitat” for operational offsets--No data are available to support broadening the defining features of denning habitat beyond that established by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Prohibit activities within designated critical habitat for polar bears--Critical habitat for polar bears must be considered during the specified activities; however, complete prohibition is not practicable due to the large spatial extent of critical habitat and project objectives.

Establish corridors for female and cub transit to the sea ice--As no data support the existence of natural transit corridors to the sea ice, establishment of corridors in the ITR region would be highly speculative. Therefore, no mitigative benefit would be realized by their establishment.

Require third-party neutral marine mammal observers--AOGA has committed to conducting polar bear training that meets FWS standards and will use bear guards to monitor for polar bears during project activities. These bear guards will be fully incentivized to diligently monitor for polar bears given inherent safety considerations.

Require all activities to immediately cease if a polar bear or walrus is injured or killed until an investigation is completed--The FWS has incorporated into the ITRs reporting requirements for all polar bear and walrus interactions. While immediately ceasing all activities may aid in any subsequent investigation, doing so may not be practicable or safe in certain circumstances and, thus, will not be mandated.

Require use of den detection dogs--Requiring scent-trained dogs to detect polar bear dens across the broader ITR region is not practicable or safe due to the large spatial extent that would need to be surveyed. Such a wide-scale survey may also require additional transit vehicles and accommodations, which could increase disturbance to polar bears. However, in their Request, AOGA considered use of scent-trained dogs as a mitigation action when hotspots are identified, stating that their best use is one-time verification at a specific site (rather than routine monitoring or surveying large areas). This site- specific use, which is different than potential wide-spread surveys, may be used as deemed appropriate.

Construct safety gates, fences, and enclosures to prevent polar bears from accessing facilities--Constructing safety gates, fences, and enclosures to prevent polar bears from accessing all facilities is not practicable due to the short-term and relatively mobile project activities and temporary facilities.

Require the use of handheld or vehicle-mounted forward- looking infrared equipment--The efficacy rates for AIR surveys have been found to be four times more likely to detect polar bear dens versus ground-based forward-looking infrared (handheld or vehicle- mounted) due to impacts of blowing snow on detection. AOGA has previously incorporated into their mitigation measures the use of handheld or vehicle-mounted forward-looking infrared when transiting rivers occurring in suitable denning habitat, but it is not practicable to use the equipment during all transit.

Temporal restrictions after July 18--While AOGA has committed to prioritizing cleanup in coastal areas first to complete them prior to July 18, the overall timing of cleanup activities is dependent upon snow-free conditions, which vary yearly and may not occur before July 18.