Quiero saber acerca de...

43050

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

factor was evaluated during take estimations.
Response: The availability of prey was considered in the environmental baseline that informed the Services analysis of potential effects of AOGAs specified activities and issuing the ITR.
The Service does not foresee Level B
harassment appreciably reducing polar bears access to prey.
Comment 48: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify how serious take by Level A harassment and lethal take were determined in their take estimates.
Response: While the probabilities of serious take by Level A harassment and Lethal takes were separated in Table 7, when summarizing model results in Table 8 these values were reported as a combined result. All necessary MMPA
determinations were made using take estimates that combined serious take by Level A harassment and lethal take into the same general category.
Comment 49: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify the explanation for take by Level A
harassment and lethal take probabilities.
Response: As is stated in the ITR, the Service does not estimate the proposed activities will result in non-serious or serious injury take by Level A
harassment or lethal take due to the low <0.29 for non-serious take by Level A
harassment and 0.462 for serious take by Level A harassment/lethal takes probability of greater than or equal to 1
non-serious or serious injury Level A
harassment/lethal take each year of the ITR period, and a median of 0.0 for each.
Comment 50: Paragraph 1 under the heading Level A Harassment states:
Level A harassment to bears on the surface is extremely rare within the ITR
region. From 2012 through 2018, one instance of Level A harassment occurred within the ITR region associated with defense of human life while engaged in non-Industry activity. This statement and its context are unclear, and we suggest clarifying in the final rule.
Response: The referenced instance of Level A harassment represented an intentional take. This ITR process authorizes only incidental Level B
harassment. We do not find that further clarification is warranted.
Analysis Comment 51: One commenter suggested that the Service should systematically collect data on polar bear dens rather than using opportunistic data to assess impacts.
Response: Consistent with is regulations implementing the MMPA, the Service reviewed AOGAs Request
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Aug 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

using the best available scientific evidence. See 50 CFR 18.27d3. The Service finds that the monitoring and reporting requirements specified in the ITR are sufficient. The Service will continue to evaluate opportunities for enhanced data collection but the extent to which the Service itself should engage in more systematic data collection is beyond the scope of this analysis.
Comment 52: One commenter suggested that the Service should reevaluate the assumption to estimate take by Level A harassment for denning polar bears.
Response: As was explained in the proposed ITR, the Service employed a set of reasonable assumptions derived from the best available scientific evidence to analyze what would happen if denning bears were disturbed by AOGAs specified activities.
Comment 53: One commenter suggested that the Service should account for the increased risk of predation on polar bear cubs after den emergence as part of the Services impact assessment for polar bears.
Response: We disagree. We know of no instance or circumstance where a cub, recently leaving the den regardless of circumstances, would be able to successfully resist a predation attack.
The only likely predators of young cubs in this environment at this time are other polar bears, wolves, or other large carnivores. Cubs at this age rely on their mothers for protection from predation.
Comment 54: One commenter suggested that the Service should account for the potential lethal take of a polar bear as a result of a defense of human life during a human-polar bear encounter in the Services negligible impact determination.
Response: Under Section 101a5A
of the MMPA, negligible impact determinations consider the effect of the specified activities and the incidental take to be authorized, and not the effects of intentional take described by the commenter. Defense of human life takes are authorized under a separate provision of the Act.
Comment 55: One commenter suggested that the Service should reevaluate Industry impacts on denning polar bears.
Response: The Service has conducted a thorough and robust analysis based on detailed descriptions from the applicant of activities occurring within the specified geographical region and the best available science. All activities within the ITR region that have the potential to impact denning polar bears have been included in this analysis.

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Comment 56: One commenter suggested that the Service should consider that estimating the number of polar bear dens for this ITR using historic observations may lead to underestimation due to the increased land use reported for the SBS polar bear stock.
Response: The analysis does take into account the potential for >52 dens to occur in the region. As stated in the text of the document detailing the den simulations pp. 86 FR 2940729408, June 1, 2021, we use statistical distributions for each region in the ITR
i.e., NPRA, Colville to Canning, the 1002 area to simulate a number of dens in each region during each iteration of the model. Based on how these distributions were parameterized, it is possible to have up to 102 dens simulated during any given iteration of the model. That is the sum of the upper 95% CI for each of the three regions where dens were simulated.
Additionally, the data used in the den simulation portion of the model uses the best available information derived from the most up-to-date den catalogue published by Durner et al. 2020. Olson et al. 2017 shows that in the period 20072013 55% of dens occurred on land, and this did not differ from the period of 19962006 i.e., 54.5%. So, our results are consistent with these studies, based on the most recent data, and reflective of what we expect to occur during the five-year period of this ITR.
Comment 57: One commenter suggested that the Service should consider the energetic costs of denning female polar bears relocating to alternative den sites and the associated impacts of these energetic costs on the survival for both mother polar bears and their cubs.
Response: While we agree with the commenter that these types of relationships are conceivable, we are unaware of any research to support or document these claims. Further, these statements are just conjectures, and its equally feasible that females have sufficient energetic reserves to find a new den site given that they already spend energy scouting for ideal den sites. We are therefore required to use the currently best-available information, which indicates minimal impacts to denning females if forced to find a new den site after being disturbed.
Comment 58: One commenter suggested that the Service should consider whether the number of cubs affected by premature den departure is underestimated.
Response: We disagree with the notion that we have underestimated
E:FRFM05AUR2.SGM

05AUR2