Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

43064

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
complied with our NEPA
responsibilities and determined that the preparation of an EIS was not required for these regulations. Additionally, the Service notes that the polar bear is considered threatened, not endangered, under the ESA. The Service likewise fully complied with the consultation requirements under section 7 of the ESA, finalizing this regulation only after receipt of required determinations under that consultation.
Comment 147: One commenter suggested that the Service should broaden the purpose and need specified in the EA in order to consider additional alternatives for their environmental analysis.
Response: The Services statement of purpose and need is appropriate and not impermissibly narrow. Further explanation of the Services efforts to identify other reasonable alternatives is provided in the final EA. The Services summaries of 1 its early coordination with AOGA, which resulted in AOGA
revising its Request in a manner that further limited the scope of its specified activities, and 2 its analysis conducted under the MMPAs least practicable adverse impacts standard further established that the Service complies with the letter and spirit of NEPAs requirement to analyze all reasonable alternatives.
Comment 148: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify the EAs purpose and need to ensure that these statements are consistent with the Services requirements under the MMPA and these statements are separate from the applicants interests.
Response: The Services EA reflects the fact that the agencys interest is distinct from the applicants. The Services interest is in fulfilling its obligations under the MMPA and taking a hard look at its proposed action under NEPA. The Service will render its decision based on the relevant statutory and regulatory authorities whether or not that decision is in the applicants interest.
Comment 149: One commenter suggested that the Service should revise the purpose and need statements in the EA to clarify that the environmental impact analysis was conducted to limit impacts of Industry activities on polar bears and walruses rather than supporting the ITR determinations for authorization.
Response: The Service did not predetermine anything in this process. The Services EA analyzes the potential impacts of a proposed action, i.e., issuing an ITR, and not a decision that was already made. Were the Service on the basis of its own initial review or
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Aug 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

additional information submitted via public comment to find itself unable to make the requisite determinations under the MMPA, it would not issue a final ITR. While this much is clear from the larger context of the proposed ITR and draft EA, the Service has revised the final EA so as to review any reasonable implication to the contrary.
Comment 150: One commenter suggested that the Service should consider as alternatives in their EA
additional mitigation measures that include restricting Industry activities during the polar bear denning season, implementing a buffer around denning habitat, and only authorizing Industry activities that are compliant with the Nations climate goals to limit global warming.
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.
While further restrictions of operations during winter and implementation of a buffer around all potential denning habitat are not practicable given the location of existing facilities and roads that must be utilized during winter to ensure the continuity of operations and protection of tundra and wetlands, the ITR contemplates a suite of mitigation measures to protect denning bears i.e., avoidance measures, multiple AIR surveys, exclusion zones around known or putative dens. Since the Service does not have authority to approve or disapprove the oil and gas activities themselves, it cannot pick and choose which activities may continue in order to meet climate goals.
Comment 151: One commenter suggested that the Service should clarify how the physical environment will be impacted by Industry activities in the EA.
Response: The commenter appears to unduly conflate potential impacts from the proposed actioni.e., issuing an ITRwith potential impacts from the underlying oil and gas activities, which the Service does not authorize and which are not an effect of the action. In developing the EA, the Service considered whether issuing the ITR and authorizing the incidental take contemplated therein would cause any reasonably foreseeable impacts to the physical environment, and reasonably determined that it would not. None of the on-the-ground activities cited in the comment would be approved by the Service or caused by the ITR.
Comment 152: One commenter suggested that the Service should
PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

address how additional oil and gas activities will impact the climate as part of the EA.
Response: The scope of the EA is to describe impacts from the Federal action of issuing the ITR. Effects of the oil and gas activities themselves, to include upstream and downstream GHG
emissions, are not effects of the Services Proposed Action.
Mitigation Measures Comment 153: One commenter suggested that the Service should include mitigation measures that restrict Industry activities.
Response: While reviewing prior iterations of AOGAs Request, the Service discussed the appropriateness of further limiting the scope of AOGAs specified activities so as to reduce the potential taking of polar bears. AOGA
subsequently made several revisions to its Request, which the Service accounted for in its analyses under the MMPA and NEPA. The Service also attempted to identify further operational restrictions in satisfaction of the MMPAs least practicable adverse impacts standard and NEPAs requirement to analyze reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures.
The results of those efforts are described in the various analyses supporting the ITR process.
Comment 154: One commenter suggested that the Service should address the inconsistency in the number of required AIR surveys in the EA and ITR.
Response: We will provide further clarification in the EA on the number of AIR flights required for each activity.
Comment 155: One commenter suggested that the Service should revise the mitigation measure at proposed 18.126d2 to include safe and operationally possible in regards to maintaining the minimum aircraft flight altitude.
Response: We have made this revision.
Comment 156: One commenter suggested that the Service should revise the mitigation measure at 18.1264c1 to include that vessel crew members may also qualify as dedicated marine mammal observers in order to accommodate vessels with limited crew capacity.
Response: The Service recognizes the limited crew member capacity aboard certain vessels and that it may not always be possible to take on an additional crew member to conduct watches for marine mammals.
Requirements for marine mammal observers will be evaluated upon submission of applications for LOAs.

E:FRFM05AUR2.SGM

05AUR2