Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

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

challenging to obtain on Pacific walrus in the wild or held in captivity.
However, we will continue to improve our understanding of Pacific walrus hearing acuity as feasible.
Comment 138: The Service should consider the report Simulation of Oil Spill Trajectories During the Broken Ice Period in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas French-McCay et al. 2016 to better inform our analysis of potential polar bear oil spill exposure and effects in the Beaufort Sea.
Response: We have used BOEMs 2020 Oil Spill Risk Assessment because it provides the most current and rigorous treatment of potential oil spills in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. We agree analysis similar to Wilson et al.
2018 would be a valuable addition to future regulations.
NEPA and ESA
Comment 139: One commenter suggested that the Services EA is inadequate because it does not present a reasoned explanation for the determinations of polar bear take and requests the Service to prepare an EIS.
Response: We disagree. The Services EA and FONSI reasonably reflect considerations important to SBS polar bears and Pacific walrus, and are scientifically and legally adequate. It is appropriate for the EA to reference and summarize the ITRs analysis and determinations rather than duplicate them in their entirety.
Comment 140: One commenter suggested that the Service did not consider restricting the geographic scope and timing of activities as an alternative to reduce impacts in their EA.
Response: We disagree. Temporal and geographic constraints were incorporated into AOGAs revised request in light of collaboration with the Service. The Service also considered the use of further time and space restrictions for oil and gas activities to limit the impact on denning bears.
These restrictions were not determined to be practicable as they may interfere with human health and safety as well as the continuity of oil and gas operations.
The Service found that no additional mitigation measures are required to be imposed through the ITR, other than those described, in order to effect the lease practicable adverse impact on polar bears and walruses.
Comment 141: One commenter suggested that the Service should reevaluate the EAs no action alternative to account for baseline conditions in which the commenter suggests that this alternative will result in a curtailment of activities as opposed to activities
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Aug 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

proceeding without requested mitigation measures and potentially unauthorized take.
Response: The EAs characterization of the No Action Alternative is appropriate and meets all NEPA
requirements. Oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities have occurred at various locations on the North Slope and adjacent Beaufort Sea waters for several decades and will continue to occur in the future, with or without this ITR. Hence, they are necessarily recognized as part of the environmental baseline. The notion that denying AOGAs Request for this ITR
would cause the specified oil and gas activities to cease or not occur has no basis in law or practical reality.
Operators may proceed without an incidental take authorization albeit at the risk of enforcement actions, modify their activities in a manner that avoids incidental take, and/or obtain other forms of incidental take authorization i.e., IHAs or a different ITR.
Comment 142: One commenter suggested that the Service does not adequately discuss the effectiveness of the requested mitigation measures in the EA.
Response: The mitigation measures integrated into the ITR are already incorporated into the proposed action analyzed in the EA. The case cited by the commenter appears to address the manner in which an action agency must evaluate additional mitigation measures that are not already incorporated into the proposed action, and thus seems offpoint. The EAs references to spatial and temporal restrictions encompass limitations inherent to AOGAs specified activities, e.g., finite project footprints, the seasonal rather than yearround nature of certain activities, buffer zones, etc. These limitations are described in detail in AOGAs Request, the ITR, and Section 2.3.1 of the EA.
The EA need not comprehensively relist each limitation in the Summary sections quoted by the commenter.
Comment 143: One commenter suggested that the Service should account for the potential of take by Level A harassment and discuss the associated impacts on SBS polar bears in the EA.
Response: The Service does not ignore the potential for lethal injurious take to occur. Rather, it quantitatively estimated the probability of such impacts occurring. The commenter acknowledges as much when it references the Services own estimate.
The Service does not assume that no take by Level A harassment will occur; rather, it does not anticipate that any take beyond take by Level B

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

43063

harassment will occur. The Service disagrees with the commenters broad and unsupported assertion that it greatly underestimated take by Level A
harassment. The Service analyzed all potential impacts using a rigorous methodology and the best available scientific evidence.
Comment 144: One commenter suggested that the Service should account for additional impacts, such as planned development and increased emissions from future activities, when determining what level of take is permitted in order to be considered a negligible impact.
Response: The MMPA directs the authorization of incidental take where the requestors specified activities meet specific MMPA standard e.g., small numbers, negligible impact, no unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the stock for subsistence purposes. Here, the Service has reasonably determined that the incidental take associated with the specific activities described in AOGAs Request adhere to applicable MMPA
standards. The possibility that other activities e.g., hypothetical activities at ANWR, Liberty, or greenhouse gas emission sources around the world could independently impact the SBS
stock of polar bears sometime in the future does not preclude the issuance of this ITR.
Comment 145: One commenter suggested that the Service should conduct a more thorough site-specific analysis of impacts to polar bears and their ESA-designated critical habitat.
Response: We disagree. As explained in the proposed rule, and affirmed in this final rule, the Service conducted a robust analysis of potential impacts to polar bears and their habitat under this rulemaking. Further, and as we acknowledged in the proposed rule, the Service recognized that the proposed regulation could impact polar bears and their ESA-designated critical habitat.
Therefore, prior to finalizing this regulation, the Service conducted an intra-Service ESA section 7 consultation on our proposed regulation. The ESA
section 7 biological opinion and its determinations issued prior to finalizing these regulations is available as a supporting document in the www.regulations.gov docket as well as on the web at: https ecos.fws.gov/ecp/
report/biological-opinion.
Comment 146: One commenter suggested that the Service should include an environmental impact statement as part of their authorization.
Response: We disagree. As explained in the proposed rule, and affirmed in this final rule, the Service fully
E:FRFM05AUR2.SGM

05AUR2