Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 149, August 3, 2011, Pages 46595-47054 Page: 47,036

                                
47036     Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 149/Wednesday, August 3, 2011 /Rules and Regulations

environment. Conversely, during ice-
covered and summer seasons, industry
facilities located further offshore
(greater than 8 km or 5 mi) may increase
the chance of bears being exposed to oil,
as the bears will be associated with the
ice habitat.
Discussion of Polar Bear Aerial Coastal
Surveys for Current Analysis
The Service has an ongoing project to
monitor polar bear distribution and
numbers along the Beaufort Sea
coastline during the fall season. Aerial
surveys were conducted between 2000
and 2009. From 2000 to 2005, the
Service investigated the relationship
between sea-ice conditions, food
availability, and the fall distribution of
polar bears in terrestrial habitats of the
SBS via weekly aerial surveys. Aerial
surveys were conducted weekly during
September and October along the SBS
coastline and barrier islands between
Barrow and the Canadian border to
determine polar bear density during the
peak use of terrestrial habitat by bears.
The Service observed that the number of
bears on land increased when sea-ice
retreated farthest from the shore. The
distribution of bears also appeared to be
influenced by the availability of
subsistence-harvested bowhead whale
carcasses and the density of ringed seals
in offshore waters.
Between 2000 and 2005, the
maximum density estimate of bears
observed during any single survey was
8.6 bears/100 km (62 mi), or 122 bears
total. Across all years (2000 to 2005) and
survey dates between mid-September
and the end of October, an average of 4
bears/100 km (62 mi), or 57 bears total,
were observed. The Service estimated
that a maximum of 8.0 percent and an
average of 3.7 percent of the estimated
1,526 bears in the SBS population were
observed on land during the late open-
water and broken-ice period. This
period coincides with increased
aggregations of bears in the nearshore at
feeding sites and the peak observation
period (August through October) of
bears observed by Industry as reported
through their bear monitoring programs.
This would likely be the period posing
the greatest risk to the largest number of
bears from an oil spill.
The number of bears observed per
kilometer of survey flown was higher
between Cape Halkett and Jago Spit (4
bears/100 km [62 mi]) than the area
surveyed between Barrow and the
Canadian border (3 bears/100 km [62
mi]) during the 2003-2005 surveys. The
Service reported that this difference was
largely driven by a major concentration
of bears (69 percent of total bears

onshore) at Barter Island (17.0 polar

bears/100 km [62 mi]). In addition,
annual surveys were also conducted in
2007, 2008, and 2009. The number of
bears observed during weekly surveys
ranged between 2 to 51, 2 to 78, and 7
to 75, respectively. The highest
concentrations continued to be in the
area of Barter Island and the community
of Kaktovik. Using the above
information, if a spill occurred during
the fall open-water or broken-ice period,
up to 8 percent of the SBS population
could potentially contact oil.
Conclusion of Risk Assessment
In summary, documented oil-spill-
related impacts in the marine
environment to polar bears to date in
the Beaufort Sea by the oil and gas
Industry are minimal. To date, no large
spills by Industry in the marine
environment have occurred in Arctic
Alaska. Nevertheless, the possibility of
oil spills from Industry activities and
the subsequent impacts on polar bears
that contact oil remain a major concern.
There has been much discussion
about effective techniques for
containing, recovering, and cleaning up
oil spills in Arctic marine
environments, particularly the concern
that effective oil spill cleanup during
poor weather and broken-ice conditions
has not been proven. Given this
uncertainty, limiting the likelihood of a
large oil spill becomes an even more
important consideration. Industry oil-
spill contingency plans describe
methodologies in place to prevent a
spill from occurring. For example, all
current offshore production facilities
have spill containment systems in place
at the well heads. In the event that an
oil discharge should occur, containment
systems are designed to collect the oil
before it contacts the environment.
With the limited background
information available regarding oil
spills in the Arctic environment, it is
unknown what the outcome of such a
spill event would be if one were to
occur. Polar bears could encounter oil
spills during the open-water and ice-
covered seasons in offshore or onshore
habitat. Although the majority of the
SBS polar bear population spends a
large amount of their time offshore on
the pack ice, it is likely that some bears
would encounter oil from a large spill
that persisted for 30 days or more.
Although the extent of impacts from
a large oil spill would depend on the
size, location, and timing of spills
relative to polar bear distributions and
on the effectiveness of spill response
and cleanup efforts, under some
scenarios, population-level impacts
could be expected. A large spill

originating from a marine oil platform

could have significant impacts on polar
bears if an oil spill contacted an
aggregation of polar bears. Likewise, a
spill occurring during the broken-ice
period could significantly impact the
SBS polar bear population, in part
because polar bears may be more active
during this season.
In the event that an offshore oil spill
contacted numerous bears, a potentially
significant impact to the SBS population
could result, initially to the percentage
of the population directly contacted by
oil, but impacts could likely affect a
much larger portion of the population.
This effect would be magnified in and
around areas of polar bear aggregations.
Bears could also be affected indirectly
either by food contamination or by
chronic lasting effects caused by
exposure to oil. During the 5 year period
of these regulations, however, the
chance of a large spill occurring is
extremely low.
While there is uncertainty in the
analysis, certain vectors have to align
for polar bears to be impacted by a large
oil spill occurring in the marine
environment. First, a large spill has to
occur. Second, the large spill has to
contact areas where bears may be
located. Assuming that a large spill
occurs, BOEMRE's most recent OSRA
estimated that there is as much as a 13
percent chance that a large spill from
the analyzed sites (LAs 8, 10, 12, and
PLs 10, 11, 12), would contact Cross
Island (ERA 96) within 60 days during
summer and as much as an 11 percent
chance that it would contact Barter
Island and/or the coast of the ANWR
(ERA 95 and 100, LS 107 and 138).
Similarly, there is as much as a 5
percent chance that an oil spill would
contact the coast near Barrow (ERA 55,
LS 85). Third, polar bears would have
to be seasonally distributed within the
affected region when the oil is present.
Data from the polar bear coastal surveys
suggested that while polar bears are not
uniformly distributed, an average of 3.7
percent, with a maximum of 8 percent
(sample size of 122 bears), of the
estimated 1,526 bears in the SBS
population were distributed along the
Beaufort Sea coastline between the
Alaska/Canada border and Barrow.
As a result of the information
considered here, the Service concludes
that the probability of an offshore spill
from an offshore production facility in
the next 5 years is low. Moreover, in the
unlikely event of a large spill, the
probability that spills would contact
areas or habitat important to bears
appears low. Third, while individual
bears could be affected by a spill, the
potential for a population-level effect

would be minimal unless the spill