Quiero saber acerca de...

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices Bay, and another commenter and its organizations members expressed general support for the project. Our responses to the substantive comments received are provided here, and the comments have been posted online at:
https www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-alaskagasline-development-corporationliquefied-natural-gas-0. Please see the commenters letters for full detail regarding justification for their recommendations.
Comment 1: During the initial public comment period on the proposed IHA, NMFS received a request from the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission AEWC requesting a 60-day extension of the comment period. The request indicated that the AEWC required more time to conduct their review and provide comments.
The AEWC reiterated that 1 the Whaling Captains, community members, and the thousands of Alaska Natives who depend on the success of their harvests for their food security will be directly affected by any adverse effects from this project, and that 2
they have a direct stake in ensuring that this project is properly and thoroughly reviewed. Specifically, they noted that in addition to other challenges to reviewing the proposed IHA within the 30 days initially provided, the summer months are a time when many community members engage in a wide range of subsistence activities.
Response: Given the factors listed by AEWC in its request, and the fact that the specified activity the IHA addresses was not scheduled to start until 2022
now 2023, NMFS elected to provide additional time for public comment.
Due to the timing of the request, it was not feasible to publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing a comment period extension prior to the close of the initial public comment period. Therefore, NMFS reopened the public comment period from September 16, 2020 until November 16, 2020 to receive additional information and comments 85 FR 57836; September 16, 2020. NMFS fully considered comments and information submitted during both comment periods in the preparation of this final IHA, and responses are included in this section.
Comment 2: A commenter stated that NMFS should address in a substantive manner the apparent rejection of the Peer Review Panels PRP
recommendations and comments.
Response: NMFS fully considered the PRPs comments, as described in the Monitoring Plan Peer Review section of this notice and the notice of the proposed IHA, and NMFS adopted some
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:43 Feb 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

of the panels recommendations. The final IHA includes additional recommendations by the PRP that were not included in the proposed IHA: the requirement for AGDC to conduct sound source verification SSV and to use three hydrophones in its passive acoustic monitoring PAM setup during the open water period, rather than one hydrophone required by the proposed IHA. For a full discussion of the panels comments, and rationale for which recommendations were and were not adopted, please see the Monitoring Plan Peer Review section of this notice.
Comment 3: Commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed take by Level A harassment of ringed and bearded seals, and take by Level A
harassment of bowhead whales, which AGDC requested in its application. The commenters stated that an IHA should not authorize take by Level A
harassment, and rather take by Level A
harassment should only be authorized through a rulemaking process and subsequent LOAs. One commenter stated that NMFS must do a better job to explain how it reached its conclusions that there will be no Level A harassment take and how AGDC will be able to ensure that no Level A
harassment take occurs if the mitigation and monitoring is insufficient.
Response: Section 101a5D of the MMPA and the associated implementing regulations allow for the authorization of incidental take by harassment including both Level A and Level B harassment through an IHA.
However, for all incidental take authorizations, NMFS aims to avoid or minimize take by Level A harassment for all species, and, in this case, particularly bowhead whale given its importance to subsistence communities.
As described in the Take Calculation and Estimation section of this notice, NMFS does not expect take by Level A
harassment of bowhead whale to occur due to the shallow water depth in the project area. Additionally, no bowhead whales have been observed during Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals ASAMM surveys in Block 1a which encompasses the Level A
harassment zone since Block 1a surveys in began in 2016. Further, shutdown requirements within designated shutdown zones for low-frequency LF
cetaceans which include bowhead whales are expected to prevent take by Level A harassment given the large size and visibility of bowhead whales.
Additionally, Level A harassment zones are calculated with an associated duration component based on the amount of pile driving expected to occur within one day. Therefore, a
PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

10659

marine mammal is not taken by Level A
harassment instantaneously when it enters the Level A harassment zone, and given the shallow depths, even if a bowhead did enter the Level A
harassment zone, we would not expect it to remain within the zone for a long enough period to incur permanent threshold shift PTS.
Take by Level A harassment of ice seals is authorized through this IHA.
NMFS recognizes the importance of these animals to subsistence communities also and has worked with AGDC to minimize expected take of ice seals by Level A harassment to the extent practicable. As noted in the Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section, we expect that the relatively small number of Level A
harassment exposures, for seals only, will result only in slight PTS within the lower frequencies associated with pile driving.
Comment 4: A commenter stated that there is no information in the record demonstrating that pile driving in the mid-Beaufort Sea, even in shallow water, will not disturb the fall bowhead whale migration as it travels west past the project area toward Utqiagvik. The commenter described the 2019 and 2020
Utqiagvik hunts. Please refer to the AEWCs comment letter, submitted during the comment extension, for additional detail on the 2019 and 2020
Utqiagvik hunts, beyond what is provided below.
The commenter stated that the early fall harvest in 2020 and the variation in harvest outcomes between 2019 and 2020 are only two examples of the unprecedented changes we are seeing in our marine ecosystem, including in the behavior of our resources. Given the unpredictability of our times, we are being forced to adapt our hunting practices and to become more flexible in our planning. As a result, harvesting periods and established time-area closures may vary in coming years.
The commenter stated that as the changes we are experiencing continue to unfold, it is essential that everyone hunters, developers, and regulators increase our vigilance in monitoring changes to the whales migratory behavior.
The commenter stated that we do not know whether, given the whales sensitivity to anthropogenic sounds and vibrations in the ocean, there is potential for deflection of the migration and other behavioral changes as the migration passes the proposed project.
Unfortunately, based on the current record, the AEWC and NMFS cannot reasonably conclude that the construction activity will not have an
E:FRFM22FEN2.SGM

22FEN2