Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 149, August 3, 2011, Pages 46595-47054 Page: 47,027
viii, 47054, iii p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 149 /Wednesday, August 3, 2011 /Rules and Regulations
(1-mi) exclusion area around the now-
known den and 24-hour monitoring of
the site, ensures that disturbance is
minimized.
4. Effect on Prey Species
Ringed seals are the primary prey of
polar bears in the Beaufort Sea and
inhabit the nearshore waters where
offshore Industry activities occur.
Industry will mainly have an effect on
seals through the potential for
contamination (oil spills) or industrial
noise disturbance. Effects of
contamination from oil discharges for
seals are described in the following
section, "Potential Impacts of Waste
Product Discharge and Oil Spills on
Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears,"
under the "Pacific Walrus" subsection.
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.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on
Polar Bears
The Service anticipates that potential
impacts of Industry noise, physical
obstructions, and human encounters on
polar bears would be limited to short-
term changes in behavior and should
have no long-term impact on
individuals and no impacts on the polar
bear population.
Potential impacts will be mitigated
through various requirements stipulated
within LOAs. Mitigation measures
required for all projects will include a
polar bear and/or walrus interaction
plan and a record of communication
with affected villages that may serve as
the precursor to a POC with the village
to mitigate effects of the project on
subsistence activities. Mitigation
measures that may be used on a case-by-
case basis include the use of trained
marine mammal monitors associated
with marine activities, the use of den
habitat maps developed by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), 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 1.6-km (1-
mi) 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 exploration project 30 km
(approximately 20 mi) inland from the
coast than for an annual nearshoreBased on past monitoring information,
bears are more prevalent in the coastal
areas than at such distances inland and,
therefore, there may be differences in
monitoring and mitigation measures
required by the Service to limit the
disturbance to bears and to limit
human/bear interactions.
The Service manages Industry
activities occurring in polar bear
denning habitat by applying proactive
and reactive mitigation measures to
limit Industry impact to denning bears.
Proactive mitigation measures are
actions taken to limit den site exposure
to Industry activities in denning habitat
before den locations are known. They
include the requirement of a polar bear
interaction plan, possible den detection
surveys, and polar bear awareness and
safety training. Reactive mitigation
measures are actions taken to minimize
Industry impact to polar bear dens once
the locations have been identified. They
can include applying the 1.6-km (1-mi)
buffer around the den site and 24-hour
monitoring of the den site.
An example of the application of this
process would be in the case of Industry
activities occurring around a known
bear den, where a standard condition of
LOAs requires Industry projects to have
developed a polar bear interaction plan
and to maintain a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer
between Industry activities and any
known denning sites. In addition, we
may require Industry to avoid working
in known denning habitat until bears
have left their dens. 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 remote sensing
techniques, such as FLIR imagery, in
concert with maps of denning habitat
along the Beaufort Sea coast.
FLIR imagery, as a mitigation tool, is
used in connection with coastal polar
bear denning habitat maps. 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 location
protocol are noted, and further
mitigation measures are placed around
these locations. FLIR surveys are more
effective at detecting polar bear dens
than are visual observations. The
effectiveness increases when FLIR
surveys are combined with site-specific,
scent-trained dog surveys. These
techniques will continue to be required
as conditions of LOAs when
appropriate.
In addition, Industry has sponsoredbear hearing (resulting in the
development of polar bear audiograms);
the 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 in
refining site-specific mitigation
measures. Using current mitigation
measures, Industry activities have had
no known polar bear population-level
effects during the period of previous
regulations. We anticipate that, with
continued mitigation measures, the
impacts to denning and non-denning
polar bears will be at the same low level
as in previous regulations.
Monitoring data suggest that the
number of polar bear encounters in the
oil fields fluctuates from year to year.
Polar bear observations by Industry
increased between 2004 and 2009 (89
bear observations in 2004 and 420 bear
observations in 2009). These
observations range from bears observed
from a distance and passively moving
through the area to bears that pose a
threat to personnel and are hazed for
their safety and the safety of Industry
personnel. This increase in observations
is believed to be due to increased
numbers of bears using terrestrial
habitat, an effort by Industry and the
Service to increase polar bear awareness
and safety among Industry personnel,
and an increase in the number of people
monitoring bear activities around the
facilities. Although bear observations
appear to have increased, bear/human
encounters remain uncommon events.
We anticipate that bear/human
encounters during the 5-year period of
these regulations will remain
uncommon.
Potential Impacts of Waste Product
Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
Individual walruses and polar bears
can potentially be affected by Industry
activities through waste product
discharge and oil spills. These potential
impacts are described below.
Polar bear and walrus ranges overlap
with many active and planned oil and
gas operations. Polar bears may be
susceptible to oil spills from platforms/
production facilities and pipelines in
both offshore and onshore habitat, while
walruses are susceptible to oil spills
from offshore facilities. To date, no
major offshore oil spills have occurred
in the Alaska Beaufort Sea. Some on-
shore spills have occurred on the North
Slope at production facilities or
pipelines connecting wells to the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System with no knowncooperative research evaluating polar
47027
development project in shallow waters.
impacts to polar bears.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 149, August 3, 2011, Pages 46595-47054, periodical, August 3, 2011; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52326/m1/438/?rotate=90: accessed March 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.