Quiero saber acerca de...

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2

10662

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices
the coordination with subsistence communities as described in the POC, which includes coordination with the ice seal committee. AGDC will only work during the winter/spring contingency period in the event that unforeseen circumstances or delays prevent them from completing construction during the open water season, and intends to clearly describe its potential winter construction to the ice seal committee and other subsistence groups. Additionally, the final IHA includes a requirement that AGDC must consult with an experienced subsistence advisor for detection of seal lairs for activities that occur in winter, and must implement a 150-m avoidance buffer in the event lairs are identified during construction.
NMFS is not requiring AGDC to utilize trained dogs to detect ringed seal lairs, as there are a very limited number of trained dogs available for detecting seal lairs, and further Alaska Native subsistence hunters have raised concerns about polar bears following the scent of the dogs to hunt those lairs pers. comm., Sheyna Wisdom.
AGDC will continue to work closely with subsistence hunters from North Slope communities, including the ice seal committee to minimize disturbance of seals and subsistence hunting. If additional measures are agreed upon, they will be added to the POC, which as described previously, AGDC is required by the IHA to follow.
Comment 10: A commenter stated that each year it devotes substantial resources toward negotiating a CAA
with oil and gas companies to mitigate the impacts of oil and gas exploration on our subsistence lifestyle and our way of life. Thus, the analysis in the Federal Register of potential impacts to subsistence uses should begin with a discussion of whether the operator has signed the CAA and, if so, what the CAA includes as mitigation measures for our subsistence activities. By setting forth that discussionand by incorporating those mitigation measures into the IHA, along with the measures already discussed by NMFSthe agency provides itself a firm, rational basis to issue a no unmitigable adverse impact finding, as required by the MMPA. The commenter noted that such steps are necessary even though a recent Order from FERC for this project requires a signed CAA before construction can begin. Another commenter stated that the proposed authorization depends on a CAA with Alaska Native villages, although it is unclear what the agreement will entail, and therefore, it is arbitrary for NMFS to rely on such agreements to determine that there will
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:43 Feb 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

not be adverse impacts to subsistence use.
Response: NMFS did not use the potential CAA to justify its preliminary unmitigable adverse impact determination in the proposed IHA.
Rather, NMFS described what a CAA is, and mentioned that AGDC was considering whether it would enter a CAA or similar agreement with the AEWC, and that it would discuss and evaluate a CAA in the meetings discussed in the notice. As described in this final notice, AGDC has determined that it will enter the CAA for the construction season, as it is required by a FERC order noted by commenters.
NMFS unmitigable adverse impact analysis and determination is based upon our analysis of the impacts of the action on subsistence uses and the mitigation measures included in the IHA and described in this notice. As stated above, NMFS supports and encourages participation of applicants in the CAA process. Where measures likely to be identified through the CAA
process are necessary to ensure an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses or that the activities have the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat paying particular attention to the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses, similar or identical measures would be appropriately included in the IHA, however, NMFS
does not require applicants to sign the CAA.
Substantial mitigation measures have been agreed upon to minimize potential impacts to subsistence activities as described in the Mitigation Measures section of this notice. The final IHA
requires project aircraft to transit at an altitude of 457 m 1,500 ft except in specific circumstances, such as landing or takeoff, as included in the 2020
CAA. We note, though, that AGDC will sign the CAA in the year in which work is conducted rather than this year, so the exact mitigation measures included in the CAA are not known. However, in addition to the specific mitigation measures outlined in the IHA, the IHA
requires AGDC to conduct coordination with subsistence communities to resolve conflicts and to notify the communities of any changes in the operation, as described in its POC, in addition to FERCs requirement that it sign the CAA
prior to the start of construction. This additional coordination may result in additional mitigation measures, if agreed upon by the communities and AGDC.
Comment 11: Commenters stated that the IHA focuses only on pile driving
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

and does not address other activities associated with AGDCs project, such as screeding, gravel deposition, multibeam hydrographic surveys, barge bridge tail wall pile driving, drilling/
augering noise, construction of the seabed pad. A commenter further stated that gravel deposition for the causeway widening and 31-acre 0.13 km2
dockhead and annual screeding of 13.7
acres 0.06 km2 of seabed will destroy habitat for marine mammals and their prey. It will also cause sedimentation and turbidity in the project area and nearby vicinity. The filling and screeding activities will suspend contaminants in the water column, which can be taken up by marine mammals or their prey. The activities will also harm benthic organisms, and the sedimentation and turbidity will adversely affect benthic organisms, plankton, and fish that are prey for marine mammals Bluhm and Gradenger, 2008. NMFS rationale that screeding impacts are discountable because of naturally high sedimentation and turbidity is inadequate to address the additive impacts of the construction activities.
Commenters stated that more consideration should be given to potential impacts from the sources listed above and to NMFS decision to exclude these items from further analysis. One commenter asked NMFS
to encourage organizations to deal with all aspects of a proposed project in future IHAs.
A commenter also stated that NMFS
provides an unsupported claim that because annual installation of a barge bridge and construction of a seabed pad sound like ordinary construction they do not expect take from these activities.
If the AK LNG project, however, were not being built these construction noises would not occur. There is no evidence that normal construction noise and activities do not take marine mammals.
A commenter stated that it is unclear if there has been discussion of the cumulative impacts from these sources in reference to screeding, gravel deposit, and vessel traffic.
Response: AGDC did not request take for the activities listed by the commenters. NMFS considers all aspects of a project in its analysis, and concurs that take is unlikely to occur for activities other than pile driving, and therefore, has not included take for those activities in the final IHA.
As described in the proposed IHA, we do not expect take from screeding to occur as a result of AGDCs activities, however, the proposed and final IHAs include a requirement for AGDC to follow all mitigation measures described
E:FRFM22FEN2.SGM

22FEN2