Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Comment 157: One commenter suggested that the Service should consider additional infrared technology alternatives in addition to AIR in order to increase the detectability of polar bear dens.
Response: AIR efficacy rates used in our estimates for take of denning bears were based upon surveys using both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.
AOGA proposed using only fixed wing aircraft for IR so that is what the Service analyzed. While visual observations and on-the-ground surveys are commonly implemented mitigation measures in addition to AIR surveys, we currently lack the data needed to analyze the den detection efficacy rates of visual and handheld infrared methods.
Comment 158: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify the required mitigation measures regarding offshore seismic surveys.
Response: No offshore seismic operations were included in the proposed activities, thus take will not be authorized for offshore seismic projects in this rule. As such the Service did not need to include mitigation measures such as ramp-up and shutdown procedures.
Comment 159: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify whether the requirement for Industry entities to cooperate with the Service and participate in joint research efforts to assess Industry impacts on marine mammals was removed.
Response: This language was erroneously omitted. We have revised the final rule to include this language.
Comment 160: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify whether humanpolar bear encounters that occur during this regulation period will be submitted to the Polar Bear Human Information Management System PBHIMS in order to contribute to international efforts for polar bear conservation.
Response: The Service represents the United States as a participant in the Polar Bear Range States. We will continue to submit applicable human polar bear encounter records to PBHIMS
as part of our participation in this effort.
Comment 161: One commenter suggested that the Service should request stricter mitigation measures for minimum aircraft flight altitudes and maximum vessel speeds to reduce potential impacts on marine mammals.
Response: The Service has worked with the applicant to develop mitigation measures that create the least practicable adverse impact on polar bears and Pacific walruses. The ITR
requires aircraft to fly high enough, and vessels to travel slow enough, to greatly
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Aug 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

reduce the potential for impacts. Further restrictions were deemed unnecessary to achieve the least practicable adverse impact because they were precluded either by safety considerations or they would not discernably reduce the potential for effects to marine mammals.
Comment 162: Commenters suggested that the Service should request more specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts on marine mammals during project activities.
Response: The ITR already prescribed the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on Pacific walruses and SBS polar bears. Further, the Service retains discretion to impose additional mitigation measures on an activity-specific basis through the LOA
process.
Comment 163: One commenter suggested that the Service should address how the requested mitigation measures reduce Industry impacts on polar bear and walrus and their habitat.
Response: The Service has worked with the applicant to identify areas of high denning density and incorporate later start dates for seismic activity in this region. We also worked with the applicant to develop ideal temporal windows for maternal denning surveys.
These mitigation measures have been designed to impart the least practicable adverse impact from the proposed activities on polar bears.
Comment 164: One commenter suggested that the Service should evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring by protected species observers PSOs to detect marine mammals during periods of restricted visibility.
Response: While we acknowledge some weather conditions may hinder their ability to identify animals, the Service believes that PSOs contribute information important to the safety of humans, polar bears, and Pacific walruses.
Comment 165: One commenter suggested that the Service should revise language in the mitigation measures to be more specific about Industry activity restrictions in order to reduce impacts on marine mammals.
Response: There is an iterative process of communication between the Service and applicants when applying for individual LOAs and upon the receipt of results from maternal den surveys. The Service is unaware of the exact location dens may be occurring each year and is unable to make specific regulations based on these locations.
Comment 166: One commenter suggested that the Service should consider all habitat characterized by a 1meter elevation difference and a slope of eight degrees or greater as suitable polar
PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

43065

bear denning habitat that should be avoided by Industry activities.
Response: The applicant is required to consult the USGS map of potential denning habitat prior to activities.
Mitigation measures outlined by the ITR
must also be implemented to reduce disturbance to unknown dens.
Comment 167: One commenter suggested that the Service should request that all Industry entities should hire PSOs to monitor Industry impacts on marine mammals.
Response: Hiring of separate PSOs is not always practicable for the applicants proposed activities. The Service has included training, monitoring, and reporting requirements in the rule.
Comment 168: One commenter suggested that the Service should consider designating certain areas that are important to marine mammals as offlimits to Industry activities.
Response: We appreciate the recommendation and will continue to research and incorporate innovative measures for achieving the least practicable impact in future ITRs.
Comment 169: One commenter suggested that the Service should request a 1-mile buffer around all suitable polar bear denning habitat in order to prevent Industry activities disturbing undetected polar bear dens and reduce impacts to denning polar bears.
Response: Proper denning habitat requires the creation of snow drifts, which can differ from year-to-year as it is based on terrain and weather conditions. The ability to identify areas in which these snow drifts may occur each year prior to operations is not practicable.
Comment 170: One commenter suggested that the Service should analyze the results of polar bear den monitoring AIR surveys and human polar bear encounters reported during this regulation period in a timely manner in order to better evaluate the effectiveness of the requested mitigation measures.
Response: We appreciate the recommendation.
Comment 171: One commenter suggested that the Service should request that Industry activities be shut down if an injured or dead walrus or polar bear is reported and activities not resume until the Service investigates the circumstances that caused the injury or death of the walrus or polar bear.
Response: The Service has included in the rule a reporting requirement upon the injury or death of a walrus of polar bear as soon as possible but within 48
hours. While it may aid in any
E:FRFM05AUR2.SGM

05AUR2