Subject: 1002 Coastal Plain Incidental Take Regulation Application I. Introduction 011 June 7, 20l8, SAExploration, lnc. {hereafter or ?the applicant?) submitted a request to the Service?s Marine Mammals Management Of?ce for authorization to take a small number of polar bears by non-lethal, non-injurious harassment during their proposed three-dimensional (3D) winter seismic survey and associated activities within the Marsh Creek Program Area, located in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, between January 2, 2019, and August 3, 2020. We have conducted a preliminary analysis which, based on the information currently available to us, indicates challenges with making a determination that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the Southern Beaufort Sea (888) stock of polar bears. ll. Background Background: The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, (MMPA) gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) the authority to allow the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, in response to requests by 11.8. citizens engaged in a speci?ed activity (other than commercial ?shing) in a speci?ed geographic region. The Secretary has delegated authority for implementation of the MMPA to the US. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service is directed to allow incidental taking, for a period of up to 5 years, if we make ?ndings that the total of such taking: (1) will affect only small numbers of individuals of these species; (2) will have no more than a negligible impact on these species; and (3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species for taking for subsistence use by Alaskan Natives. If a ?nding cannot be made that the total taking will have a negligible impact or will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the stock for subsistence uses, we are to publisl the negative ?nding, along with the basis for denying the request, in the Federal Register. Imagrtant de?nitions under the MMPA andfor implementing regulations': Take: to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal Harassment: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that: has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (the MMPA calls this ?Level A harassment?), or While there are a number of important de?nitions such as small numbers, unmitigable adverse impact our last pracdcablc adverse impact, we have focused here on the de?nitions that are most critical to this particular evaluation. I I . Inwstigzttiw (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 harassment"). Negligible impact: an impact resulting from the speci?ed 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. Existing Southgm Beaufort Sea [388) Take Regulations 1175;) In August 2016, we issued ?nal ITRs that authorize nonlethal incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of Paci?c walruscs and polar bears during oil and gas industry activities in the Beaufort Sea, effective for 5 years. The geographic area covered by those ITRs excludes the Arctic National Wildlife Re?ige and all areas within its outer boundary. Southern Beaufort SeafSubpopulation of Polar 3&5 The most recent population estimate for SBS polar bears is approximately 900 individuals in 2010 (Bromaghin ct 111.2015). This represents an approximately 50 percent decline in $35 polar bear abundance between 1986 and 2010 (Amstrup et ai. 1986, Regehr ct 2006, Bromaghin et al. 2015). in addition, analyses of over 20 years of data on the size and body condition of SBS bears demonstrated decline: for most sex and age classes and signi?cant negative relationships between annual sea ice availability and body condition {Rode et a1. 2010). These lines of evidence suggest that the SBS subpopulation is currently declining due to sea ice loss. Atwood et a1. (2016) determined that the percentage of radio-collated adult females coming on shore in summer and fall increased from 5.8 to 20 percent between 2000 and 2014. Over the same period, the mean duratinn'of die open-water season (the period when less than 15 percent of the continental shelf is covered by at least 15 percent concentration sea ice) increased by 36 days and the mean length Of stay on land by polar bears increased by 31 days (Atwood et al addition to increased use of land during the open-water season, 588 polar bears have also increasingly used land'for maternal donning, with 55.2 percent of dens being constructed on land compared to ice from 2007 to 2013. :1 he Analysis The analysis will consider the potential impact of the full seismic operations {including transportation corridors, camps, and seismic work) on all life stages and behaviors of polar bears in the area. However, for this brie?ng we focus on the most critical use of the area, which is by donning bears. Our estimate is that within any one year, there are approximately 20 dens likely in the arm?. The applicant proposes to conduct Aerial Infrared (AIR) surveys of the area in an effort to detect and mitigate impacts to draining bears. Once detected, a oncomile no work buffer will be placed around each den. We consider these buffers to be effective at mitigating the impacts to donning bears Avaiiable data indicates that the e?'ectivenoss of AIR detecting dens ranges from 5062 percent. Therefore, of the 20 possible dens 1n the arm, 10-12 will be detected and protected from Level A harassment through the imposition of a one-mile bu?er. The remaining 840 will not be detected and Will be exposed to effects of the seismic Operations including which: traf?c, human activity, and seismic work. Based on data from past operations 1 1 1 The numbers used to this brie?ng are provisiola t1 fiqr?afityii?isfcing re?ned. impacts from those exposures include decreased survival of cubs, mortality ol?cubs and possibly the mortality of an adult female. Preliminarily. the result could be apprommatciy 15 Level A harassment takes (injury or mortality). We then have to examine whether these Level A takes are reasonably expected to. and are rcascmabl likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival, that therefore become non-negligible. The MMPA de?nes the Potential Removal (PER) level as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population?. The PBR is the prod net of the minimum POPUlatic-n estimate of the stock, one-half of the maximum theoretical or estimated not rate of'the stuck at a small population size, and a recovery factor between and 1-0 (PER. Nun.- 0.511.? F3). The calculation of the PBR in the most recent dra? Stock Assessment Report for the Southern Beaufort Sea stock of polar bears is l4 {Nmm of 782, Ram of 7.5% and PR of 0.5). During the 10-year period of 2006-20] 5, an averageof l9 bears per year were removed from the US. portion of the 838 stock and 14.2 bears per year were removed from the Canadian portion of the 383 stock. Defense of life kills have also occasionally occurred for this stock. 011 areragc, 33.2 bears are taken for subsistence purposes from the 888 stock on an annual basis compared to a PBR of 14, indicating that the ability of the pupulation to reach the Optimal 'S'tainable Population is It appearsrcasonable? to assume that any Level It takes from proposed seismic activities would be an additional impact to the SBS stock and would likely further adverse] a?ect the 3138 stock of polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Ifihatii's the case, we cannot conclude that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the 335 stock and must make a-negativc ?nding, and therefore not publish ITRS. of Mitigation Measures The MMPA requires that'we. considering availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods and manner of conducting the proposed activity or other means of e??ccting'the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected stock. it also allows us to consider whether-mitigating measures would render the impact of the speci?ed activity it Would not otherwise satisfy the requirement and in those cases, we can make a ?nding, of negligible impact,- subject to such mitigating measures being success?rlly - implemented As noted above, ?reconsidered the useof the AIR and: found it. to be effective "at avoiding Level A harassment for 50-62 percent of the dens in the project-area. We considered whether multiple passes with ALR'oould'inCrease thedetection probability and that is certainly possible, but it would be dif?cult to quantify the additional probability of detection and even with multiple passes (posing signi?cant ?nancial costs and logistiCal constrains), it is likely that some dens will remain undetected. We also considered spatial andlor ter'nporal restrictions on activities, but both the geographic extent and the time period necessary to avoid exposure of undetected dens 3 the number of animals which will result in thematimum productivity of the population or species, Lem? in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and thelh?ti?fihe?ecsqifteii (p phiceh {cg (am? {Sonatimcnt ibis. would be so broad as. in owopinion. to make this MW IN) is consulting Wi?h It helm urn-u! Mmag?nm?w . - anti seismic oramllo weaver ?m The species and designated critical habitat. That consultatiort is int imposed action as well as the Service's proposed euthonmtion of for polar round biolo 'ca! opinion with the BLM cannot include an incidental bum until unless such lake is authorized under the MMPA. It win include award) ambsis. It is important lo note am the negligible impact analysis under MMPA is signi?cantly bar that a jeopardy analysis under the [30de 5999?? a so . the ~833in impact analysis is conducted at moses stock all: while EA conducted at the globally listed species unit. Finally. the BLM is plannins to with?? i for the seismic operations a early as Monday September with a provisional Of No Signi?cant Impact. in. Positions of Interested Parties There is high level of interest. both in wppott and in oppositiorfto, oil and as development in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There is ?trons desire to obtain seismic comes: this coming winter so that information is available to inform lease sales and more speci?cally and strategically focm development. IV. Potential f0 Opcning ofthe Coastal Plain ofthc mac Nmional . - - is: high priority to theAdmittistnli gayMu..-. . V. Communication and .. u. -. I . 12 aft? - . j, Outreach Lead: Dr. . . 2;;ng . .n a