Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations their status was not monitored. While additional dens have been observed upon emergence, it is clear that without dedicated observers across the entire project area, it would be impossible to observe the vast majority of denning bears and their response to potential disturbance. This is especially true given the limited light conditions present during the majority of the denning period. Additionally, a large portion of the estimated take would not be observable to Industry. Rode et al.
2018 showed that when bears emerge early from dens, there is a survival consequence to cubs when subsequent observations are made 100 days post emergence. Thus, the ultimate effects of the disturbance would likely not manifest themselves until after the bears had left the area and are no longer observable by industry. With respect to the Larson et al. 2020 study, we did consider it in our analysis, but the study did not consider the well-documented differences in responses across different denning periods, which we accounted for, and it was unclear what periods their observations were from. Thus, it was unclear what level of bias was present in their response data.
Analyzing the extentif anyto which this ITR may affect the activities not described in AOGAs Request is beyond the scope of this analysis.
Comment 42: One commenter suggested that the Service should reconsider including intentional takes as part of their data to estimate the number of incidental takes because their inclusion will lead to an overestimation of the number of takes by Level B
harassment anticipated for the regulations and ITRs may authorize only incidental, but not intentional, take by harassment.
Response: The Service does not authorize intentional take under this ITR. But as the quoted language indicates, the Service did consider data concerning expected intentional take i.e., hazing rates in its analysis of incidental take. It did so because intentional take events are usually preceded by events that qualify as Level B harassment, and it is necessary to account for such instances of incidental take in the larger estimate of incidental take rates. In other words, the Service used intentional take rates as a proxy for the incidental take that generally proceeds intentional take i.e., hazing events. The Service recognizes that not all instances of intentional take are preceded by incidental take, but does not have data sufficient to support application of a reliable correction factor, and therefore made this conservative assumption to help ensure
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Aug 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

that its analysis accounts for all incidental take.
Comment 43: One commenter suggested that the Service overestimated the probability of take of polar bears by Level A harassment during Industry activities because the Service does not account for habituation of polar bears to Industry activities, adaptive mitigation measures, and the variability of received stimuli within a polar bear den.
Response: We disagree with the suggestion that bears choosing to den near industrial infrastructure and activities can be assumed to be indifferent to human activity. In fact, in our review of case studies, we found numerous instances of bears denning adjacent to industrial activities that exhibited disturbance indicative of harassment. We agree that stimuli received by bears in dens is highly variable, as shown in Owen et al. 2020.
However, just because a bear detects a signal as was the scope of Owen et al.
2020 doesnt indicate whether it is likely to respond to that stimuli. Thus, it is not possible to use the data from Owen et al. 2020 to estimate more refined distances at which bears react to different types of activities while denning. Even Owen et al. 2020
acknowledges that a 1-mile no disturbance buffer is still supported by their research. There is currently no study that establishes a curve establishing a relationship between the distance to a potential source of disturbance and the probability that it leads to disturbance. Therefore, we used the best available information to develop response rates of bears within 1-mile of potential exposures. Those response rates incorporate bears that never perceived the activity and therefore never responded, those that perceived the activity but never responded, and those that perceived the activity and responded. We then applied these responses to dens within 1 mile of an activity to determine potential disturbances.
Comment 44: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify how the estimated number of takes will be evaluated to determine LOA issuance under these regulations.
Response: The Service will issue LOAs in the manner described in its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
18.27f. The Service does not intend to conduct predictive modeling of the potential effects of the activities described in each request for an LOA.
Nor does the Service intend to prosecute recipients of LOAs for unauthorized take that is suggested by modeling but not supported by observations or any other evidence.

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

43049

Comment 45: One commenter suggested that the Service should consider that the SBS polar bear abundance estimate upon which the Service based its small numbers and negligible impact determinations is biased low.
Response: Bromaghin et al. 2015
does not apply just to the U.S. portion of the SBS and while Atwood et al.
2020 does, it provides evidence that the abundance in that area is similar to that found in Bromaghin et al. 2015, thus providing support for stability in the overall sub-population estimate and, therefore, being no different from that published in Bromaghin et al. Currently Bromaghin et al. 2015 and Atwood et al. 2020 represent the best available science on the status of the SBS
subpopulation.
Comment 46: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify why they used the cited SBS polar bear population estimate for their EA and ITR and discuss whether more recent polar bear population abundance data exist.
Response: The Service used the most current reliable population estimates of SBS polar bears in both its ITR and NEPA analyses. This was not Bromaghin et al. 2015 but rather Atwood et al. 2020. In their assessment, Atwood et al. 2020 did not find any significant differences in the size of the subpopulation between the two studies. The Atwood et al. 2020
study updated Bromaghin et al. 2015
but included additional years of data through 2016 to provide a population estimate for the year 2015. Based on its ongoing monitoring of studies, observation reports, and related information, the Service believes these estimates continue to reflect a reliable estimate of the current population. In other words, the Service is not aware of any reliable information suggesting that the SBS population of polar bears has significantly declined over the last 6
years such that the 2015 estimate is unreliable, nor has such information been submitted through the public comment process. The population estimate published in Atwood et al.
2020 is currently the best available information for the status of the SBS
subpopulation. The Service disagrees with the commenters unsupported assertion that there is a dearth of abundance data and a great deal of uncertainty in estimating population numbers.
Comment 47: One commenter suggested that the Service should address how polar bears are impacted by reduced access to their prey as a result of Industry activities and how this
E:FRFM05AUR2.SGM

05AUR2