Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea; Seismic Exploration Activities by SAExploration, Inc.

SAExploration, Inc. supports the proposed incidental take regulations for polar bears but argues that certain specific requirements are unnecessary and unsupported by science. The company advocates for the removal of mandatory third aerial infrared surveys and handheld FLIR technology, while requesting that the one-mile exclusion zone be reduced to 805 meters.

The Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) supports the proposed incidental take regulations for seismic exploration by SAExploration, Inc., but requests specific modifications. They argue that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should abandon its flawed predictive modeling in favor of observed industry data and simplify the Letter of Authorization (LOA) process.

A coalition of environmental and wildlife advocacy organizations (including Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, and others) opposes the proposed incidental take regulation for polar bears. They argue that the proposal violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) by failing to meaningfully quantify impacts, improperly segmenting activities, and underestimating the risk of lethal take to the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear stock.

The Sierra Club opposes the proposed Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) for seismic exploration by SAExploration, Inc. in the Southern Beaufort Sea. They argue that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) failed to adequately account for the likelihood of lethal take of polar bear cubs and has unlawfully segmented the analysis of cumulative impacts.

EnerGeo Alliance, a trade association representing the geophysical services industry, supports the issuance of the incidental take regulations (ITR) for polar bears but argues that the current predictive model is flawed. They contend that the model relies on overly conservative assumptions and urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to prioritize empirical evidence and historical monitoring data over the current unvalidated framework.

Friends of Animals opposes the proposed incidental take of polar bears, arguing that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot conclude that the activities will have a negligible impact. They contend that cumulative effects from decades of seismic surveying and industrial access to critical habitats pose a significant threat to the species' survival.

The commenter supports the proposed incidental take regulations for SAExploration, Inc.'s seismic activities while urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain rigorous monitoring and protections. They cite scientific research regarding the impacts of climate change and sea ice loss on polar bear populations to emphasize the need for strict mitigation measures.

Larry Dembrun, an engaged citizen, provides a general comment emphasizing the need for a balance between economic development and environmental protection. He does not take a specific position for or against the authorization of seismic exploration by SAExploration, Inc., but rather advocates for scientific integrity, transparency, and rigorous impact assessments in the regulatory process.

The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, supports the proposed incidental take regulations (ITR) for polar bears during seismic exploration by SAExploration, Inc. The State argues that the activities will have a negligible impact on polar bear stocks and emphasizes that oil and gas development is critical to the state's economy and national energy security.

An individual is urging the agency not to allow the proposed seismic exploration activities. They argue that these activities could lead to the incidental lethal take of polar bears, specifically through den disturbance and other human-caused impacts.