Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

composition and therefore, the response rates are applicable.
The estimates of behavioral response presented here do not account for the individual movements of animals away from the ITR area or habituation of animals to noise or human presence.
Our assessment assumes animals remain stationary, i.e., density does not change. There is not enough information about the movement of polar bears in response to specific disturbances to refine this assumption.
This situation could result in overestimation of harassment; however, we cannot account for harassment resulting from a polar bear moving into less preferred habitat due to disturbance.
Potential Effects of Oil Spills on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears Walrus and polar bear ranges overlap with many active and planned Industry activitiesresulting in associated risks of oil spills from facilities, ships, and pipelines in both offshore and onshore habitat. To date, no major offshore oil spills have occurred in the Alaska Beaufort Sea. Although numerous small onshore spills have occurred on the North Slope. To date, there have been no documented effects to polar bears.
Oil 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. It is illegal to discharge oil into the environment, and a reporting system requires operators to report spills.
Between 1977 and 1999, an average of 70 oil and 234 waste product spills occurred annually on the North Slope oilfields. Although most spills have been small by Industry standards less than 50 bbl, larger spills more than 500
bbl accounted for much of the annual volume. In the North Slope, a total of seven large spills occurred between 1985 and 2009. The largest of these spills occurred in the spring of 2006
when approximately 6,190 bbl leaked from flow lines near an oil gathering center. More recently, several large spills have occurred. In 2012, 1,000 bbl of drilling mud and 100 bbl of crude were spilled in separate incidents; in 2013, approximately 166 bbl of crude oil was spilled; and in 2014, 177 bbl of drilling mud was spilled. In 2016, 160
bbl of mixed crude oil and produced water was spilled. These spills occurred primarily in the terrestrial environment in heavily industrialized areas not utilized by walruses or polar bears and therefore, posed little risk to the animals.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Aug 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

The two largest onshore oil spills were in the terrestrial environment and occurred because of pipeline failures. In the spring of 2006, approximately 6,190
bbl of crude oil spilled from a corroded pipeline operated by BP Exploration Alaska. The spill impacted approximately 0.8 ha 2 ac. In November 2009, a spill of approximately 1,150 bbl from a common line carrying oil, water, and natural gas operated by BP occurred as well, impacting approximately 780 m2
8,400 ft2. None of these spills were known to impact polar bears, in part due to the locations and timing. Both sites were within or near Industry facilities not frequented by polar bears, and polar bears are not typically observed in the affected areas during the time of the spills and subsequent cleanup.
Nonetheless, walruses and polar bears could encounter spilled oil from exploratory operations, existing offshore facilities, pipelines, or from marine vessels. The shipping of crude oil, oil products, or other toxic substances, as well as the fuel for the shipping vessels, increases the risk of a spill.
As additional offshore Industry projects are planned, the potential for large spills in the marine environment increases. Oil spills in the sea-ice environment, at the ice edge, in leads, polynyas, and similar areas of importance to walruses and polar bears present an even greater challenge because of both the difficulties associated with cleaning oil in sea-ice along with the presence of wildlife in those areas.
Oiling of food sources, such as ringed seals, may result in indirect effects on polar bears, such as a local reduction in ringed seal numbers, or a change to the local distribution of seals and bears.
More direct effects on polar bears could occur from: 1 Ingestion of oiled prey, potentially resulting in reduced survival of individual bears; 2 oiling of fur and subsequent ingestion of oil from grooming; 3 oiling and fouling of fur with subsequent loss of insulation, leading to hypothermia; and 4
disturbance, injury, or death from interactions with humans during oil spill response activities. Polar bears may be particularly vulnerable to disturbance when nutritionally stressed and during denning. Cleanup operations that disturb a den could result in death of cubs through abandonment, and perhaps, death of the female as well. In spring, females with cubs of the year that denned near or on land and migrate to contaminated offshore areas may encounter oil following a spill Stirling in Geraci and St. Aubin 1990.

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

43033

In the event of an oil spill, the Service follows oil spill response plans, coordinates with partners, and reduces the impact of a spill on wildlife. Several factors will be considered when responding to an oil spillincluding spill location, magnitude, oil viscosity and thickness, accessibility to spill site, spill trajectory, time of year, weather conditions i.e., wind, temperature, precipitation, environmental conditions i.e., presence and thickness of ice, number, age, and sex of walruses and polar bears that are or are likely to be affected, degree of contact, importance of affected habitat, cleanup proposal, and likelihood of humanbear interactions. Response efforts will be conducted under a three-tier approach characterized as: 1 Primary response, involving containment, dispersion, burning, or cleanup of oil; 2 secondary response, involving hazing, herding, preventative capture/relocation, or additional methods to remove or deter wildlife from affected or potentially affected areas; and 3 tertiary response, involving capture, cleaning, treatment, and release of wildlife. If the decision is made to conduct response activities, primary and secondary response options will be vigorously applied. Tertiary response capability has been developed by the Service and partners, though such response efforts would most likely be able to handle only a few animals at a time. More information is available in the Services oil spill response plans for walruses and polar bears in Alaska, which is located at: https
www.fws.gov/r7/fisheries/contaminants/
pdf/Polar%20Bear%20WRP%20
final%20v8_Public%20website.pdf.
BOEM has acknowledged that there are difficulties in effective oil-spill response in broken-ice conditions, and the National Academy of Sciences has determined that no current cleanup methods remove more than a small fraction of oil spilled in marine waters, especially in the presence of broken ice. BOEM advocates the use of nonmechanical methods of spill response, such as in-situ burning during periods when broken ice would hamper an effective mechanical response MMS
2008. An in-situ burn has the potential to rapidly remove large quantities of oil and can be employed when broken-ice conditions may preclude mechanical response. However, the resulting smoke plume may contain toxic chemicals and high levels of particulates that can pose health risks to marine mammals, birds, and other wildlife as well as to humans.
As a result, smoke trajectories must be considered before making the decision to burn spilled oil. Another potential
E:FRFM05AUR2.SGM

05AUR2