Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations which take is estimated as well as fully evaluate whether additional take could result from activities requisite to tundra travel.
Response: As stated in the discussion of Impact Area within the ITR, behavioral response rates of polar bears to disturbances are highly variable, and data that support the relationship between distance to bears and disturbance is limited. The Service has relied upon a number of studies, representing the best available science, to arrive at the potential impact area of 1.6 km, including the study cited by the commenter. The authors found that female polar bears with cubs the most conservative group observed began to walk or run away at a mean distance of 1,534 m. Importantly, these bears were reacting to researchers directly approaching them with snowmobiles, which is an intentional as opposed to incidental act, and simply walking away from an area may not rise to the threshold of Level B harassment under the MMPA. The rates of harassment used to quantitatively estimate potential take were developed using a dataset that includes observations of human-polar bear encounters on the North Slope of Alaska. These encounters include observations of polar bear responses to snowmachines, trucks, Tuckers, bulldozers, and other industrial equipment. As such, the effects of these noise sources are incorporated into the Services take estimates.
Comment 92: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify their take evaluation of repeated disturbances to the same polar bear.
Response: As the Service described in their description of critical assumptions in the ITR, the available studies of polar bear behavior indicate that the intensity of polar bear reaction to noise disturbance may be based on previous interactions, sex, age, and maternal status. However, as it is impossible without unique identifiers such as collars or ear tags to record repeated observations of the same bear, the Service has estimated the number of Level B harassment events from the proposed activities using the assumption that each event involves a different bear. The Service acknowledges bears may be harassed repeatedly. Each harassment event is classified as a separate take and is included in small numbers determinations.
Comment 93: Commenters suggested that the Service did not have information on the specific Industry activities planned during this regulation period, which is needed to make the Services determinations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Aug 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

Response: The Service has provided detailed descriptions of the proposed activities within the ITR. We have also provided the public with geospatial files of these proposed activities during the public comment period in additional to monthly human occupancy rates.
Further, under Description of Letters of Authorization LOAs in the ITR, the Service explains that requests for LOAs must be consistent with the activity descriptions and mitigation and monitoring requirements of the ITR.
Thus, the Service used detailed descriptions of what, where, and when activities will occur to calculate quantitative take estimates.
Comment 94: One commenter suggested that the Service should address how uncertainty and natural environmental variation are accounted for in the surface interaction model.
Response: The Service used best available science to estimate ice season encounter rates. As the commenter has noted, observation in the Arctic during polar night or severe weather conditions is difficult, and as such there are no known studies that have conducted sitespecific surveys in the winter months within the project area. The Service used the most comprehensive database available, its LOA database, to develop encounter rates and quantitative take estimates. Statistical uncertainty was accounted for when developing level B
harassment rates. Furthermore, by averaging the number of encounters over the past 5 years, the Service has encompassed year-to-year differences in bear density.
Comment 95: One commenter suggested that the Service should consider whether take by Level A
harassment will occur if Industryrelated noise disturbs walruses hauled out on land causing them to stampede towards the water and potentially trampling walruses during the stampede and the basis for the take estimate.
Response: The Service does not dispute that walruses may stampede if disturbed while hauled out on land.
This behavior was discussed in the proposed ITR under Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region: Pacific Walruses.
However, as is also noted in that section, Pacific walruses are extralimital in the Southern Beaufort Sea and are rarely encountered. There are no records of haulouts within the area of proposed activities. Thus, using the best available records of Pacific walrus abundance in the South Beaufort Sea, the Service estimated that the potential existed for a group of up to 15 walrus to be encountered by humans in the project area during the open-water season.

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

43057

Comment 96: Commenters suggested that the Service should clarify how the polar bears increased use of land in recent years is accounted for in the surface interaction model.
Response: The Service used the best available data to calculate encounter and take rates. In Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region, the Service describes an increase in the percentage of the Southern Beaufort Sea stock that comes ashore in the summer and fall Atwood et al. 2016. By using an average of 5 years of reports, the Service captured variability in the number of encounters that may occur year to year.
By using encounters in the period 2014
2018, the Service has generated encounter rates that represent contemporary terrestrial habitat use.
Comment 97: One commenter suggests that the Service underestimated potential take and suggests clarification on the explanation for determining take from surface interactions.
Response: We disagree. The Service conducted a robust analysis of surfacelevel interactions related to human-bear encounters. The Service discussed that analysis in our Evaluation of Effects of Specified Activities on Polar Bears, Pacific Walruses, and Prey Species:
Polar Bear: Surface Interactions, and we reaffirm that analysis in this final rule.
Comment 98: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify how Industry activity impacts on nondenning polar bears, specifically mother bears with cubs traveling to the sea ice after den departure, are evaluated as take in the surface interaction analysis.
Response: The dataset that was used to analyze potential take from surface interactions encompassed all recorded human-polar bear interactions throughout the year, including the months when sows are moving toward the sea ice with cubs of the year. There are no recorded interactions in the 20142018 dataset between Industry and these bears that resulted in Level A
harassment. The Service has also accounted for these potential interactions when establishing mitigation measures. Under the mitigation measures established in the proposed rule, Industry must survey for maternal polar bear dens, create exclusion zones around known dens, and report all polar bear interactions including those with sows and cubs to the Service within 48 hours of the event.
Comment 99: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify that infrared methods include both aerial and ground-based technology methods in order to provide Industry entities the flexibility to use the most
E:FRFM05AUR2.SGM

05AUR2