Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

43066

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
subsequent investigation, ceasing activities in an active oil field may not be practicable or safe in certain circumstances, and thus will not be mandated.
Comment 172: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify their definition for a concentration or group of walruses or polar bears, and the commenter recommended this definition be two or more individuals.
Response: We have added this revision.
Comment 173: Paragraph 4 under Mitigation measures for operational and support vessels notes the 1 July date to allow oil and gas vessels to enter the Beaufort Sea, which is based on past information that could become less relevant and accurate in the future. We recommend the Service consider other metrics to meet the intention of this measure. A more flexible approach, for example, would be to restrict entry into the Beaufort Sea until a sufficient percentage of shorefast ice has melted.
Response: We have considered this request and recognize that in the future changing sea ice conditions, especially if the impacts of climate change are not ameliorated, may reflect a different metric. However, and because these regulations are issued for a period of 5
years only, at this time we believe the July 1 date best reflects our current understanding of sea ice changes. We also have determined that providing this date will provide better certainty to the regulated public for planning purposes.
Comment 174: One commenter suggested that the Service should account for polar bears becoming habituated to Industry activities to avoid overestimating take.
Response: We are not aware of any studies that have shown that bears become habituated to humans after denning in industrial areas or that this type of habituation leads to reduced disturbance. If the information existed, we would have incorporated it into the model. Harassment rate calculations incorporated the Services polar bear sighting database, which contains all reports of Industry sightings of walrus and polar bears as directed by the Service of all LOA holders. Assuming the practices of training, monitoring, and adaptive measures have previously been implemented, the sightings data would have somewhat incorporated their implementation. However, at this time there is no way to explicitly incorporate this data into the analysis.
Comment 175: One commenter suggested that the Service should account for the effectiveness of mitigation measures in their take estimations in order to avoid
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Aug 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

overestimating the number of incidental takes of polar bears during Industry activities.
Response: We agree that mitigation measures are important for reducing disturbance to polar bears, and we currently require each applicant to have a polar bear interaction plan and to have taken approved polar bear deterrence training. However, it is unclear how to integrate the measures into our quantitative modeling approach. The implementation of these mitigation measures is key to ensuring the least practicable adverse impact on polar bears and Pacific walrus as directed by the MMPA.
Policy and Procedure Comment 176: This proposed ITR
appears to include new information requirements from applicants seeking LOAs. New items include: 1 A digital geospatial file of the project footprint, 2 estimates of monthly human occupancy of the project area, and 3
dates of AIR surveys if such surveys are required. However, the text in the actual proposed rule, i.e., 18.12218.123, does not clearly indicate a requirement for these items. We recommend that this requirement be clarified in the final rule. Similarly, the preamble of the proposed rule introduces a new concept of monthly human occupancy;
however, this new concept as written may be confusing, and we similarly recommend that it be better described in the final rule to ensure applicants can provide the requested information.
Response: We have revised this final rule to clarify information requirements from applicants for LOAs and have clarified our discussion regarding monthly human occupancy.
Comment 177: Section 18.126b4 of the proposed regulation states that applicants will restrict timing of the activity to limit disturbance around dens. We recommend clarifying whether this will apply to an unoccupied den, putative dens, or verified occupied dens only and describing what types of timing restrictions can be expected.
Response: We agree and have added clarifying language to 18.126b4 of this final rule.
Comment 178: The term other substantially similar activities is used in the title of subpart J of the proposed rule as well as in 18.119, 18.121, 18.122, and 18.124. This term follows the description of the activities from which take may occur but is not found in the preamble text. We recommend the Service provide examples of these activities in the proposed rule or define this term in the preamble to add clarity.

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Response: We agree and have revised this final rule to provide clarity.
Comment 179: The proposed ITR
incorrectly reflects the numbers of leases and land area covered by those leases in the NPRA.
Response: We agree. This final rule has been revised to reflect 307 leases covering 2.6 million acres.
Comment 180: In regard to compliance with international conservation agreements, one commenter suggested that the Service should consider transboundary impacts on polar bears under international polar bear conservation agreements.
Response: While we acknowledge polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea move between the United States and Canada, our analysis determined that authorizing the Level B harassment of a small number of polar bears in the Beaufort ITR region will not have any transboundary impacts, much less impacts that violate international obligations. The Service has also reasonably determined that these Level B harassments will not have any unmitigable adverse impacts on the availability of SBS polar bears for subsistence uses. Additionally, while we acknowledge the important management provisions accomplished under the 1988 Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement, we note that this is a voluntary agreement and therefore not binding on the U.S.
Government.
Comment 181: One commenter suggested that the Service should evaluate activity impacts for a larger geographic region that extends beyond areas of Industry activity.
Response: The Service has conducted a thorough and robust analysis using the best available science to calculate the number of incidental harassments of polar bears and walrus due to Industry activities within the specified geographical region. The ITR refers specifically to the area of Industry activity as it is the source of the impact, which is not uniformly distributed across the specified geographical region. The Service is unable to calculate take from Industry activities in areas where Industry activities do not occur within the specified geographical region. While the range of a species may be larger than the specified activity area, the distribution is rarely if ever uniform within that space, especially in migratory species.
Small numbers determinations are based on the number of individual bears exhibiting a Level B response and the appropriate stock population estimate.
Comment 182: One commenter suggested that the Service did not
E:FRFM05AUR2.SGM

05AUR2