Quiero saber acerca de...

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices the project site where the water is extremely shallow less than 14.2 ft. 4.3
m at West Dock; therefore, we do not expect bowhead whales to occur close enough to the barge or equipment to be disturbed by its presence. Given the rare occurrence of beluga whales within the barrier islands, as evidenced by Block 1a ASAMM survey data, we expect the potential for beluga whales to be disturbed by barges to be so low as to be discountable. Block 1a encompasses the area between the shoreline and the barrier islands, including Prudhoe Bay.
ASAMM reports include just one beluga whale was observed in survey Block 1a in 2018. We also do not expect gray whales to occur close enough to the barge or equipment to be disturbed by its presence, as gray whales rarely occur within the barrier islands, as also evidenced by Block 1A ASAMM
surveys.
As stated in the Acoustic Impacts section of the notice of the proposed IHA, there are no known pinniped haulouts near the project location.
Therefore, it is unlikely that pinnipeds would be taken by exposure to in-air noise during the open water season.
While there is a chance that a pinniped could swim by the construction site with its head out of the water during onland construction such as pile driving, and be taken by Level B harassment, the likelihood of that occurring is so low as to be discountable. Additionally, there is a small chance that an individual animal could haul out in an area that is not a normal haulout site, but the chance of that occurring is also discountable. Further, if AGDC must work during their contingency period, they will begin pile driving prior to March 1 see Mitigation Measures, so we would not expect ringed seals to build their lairs close enough to the project site to be taken by in-air sound during the contingency period, other than potentially by building their lair in an alternate location due to construction noise, as discussed in NMFS response to Comment 27.
While the presence of non-acoustic stressors could affect pinnipeds, a pinniped in the water that is close enough to be disturbed by a nonacoustic stressor is likely to have already been counted as taken due to inwater noise from activities occurring in the water. As noted above, while there is a chance that a pinniped could swim by the construction site with its head out of the water, or haul out in an area that is not a normal haulout site, and be taken by Level B harassment due to nonacoustic stressors, it is so unlikely as to be considered discountable.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:43 Feb 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

Therefore, while a pinniped could be taken due to disturbance from in-air or non-acoustic stressors during construction, we would expect very few of these takes, if any. Further, any such takes would be within the margin of error in the take estimate and their potential effects fully considered in the analysis. Accordingly, additional takes from non-acoustic stressors have not been added into this final IHA.
Comment 17: A commenter stated that aircraft transportation is also part of the project; however, NMFS has completely ignored the impacts of aircraft noise and disturbance. Ice seals are sensitive to out-of-water noise, including hauling out in response to aircraft noise Bradford and Weller, 2005; Born et al., 1999.
Response: NMFS assessed the impacts of aircraft and does not expect aircraft noise from this project to result in the take of marine mammals. Born et al.
1999 analyzed escape responses i.e., hauled out animals entering the water from an aircraft and a helicopter flying at an altitude of 150 m. The results of the study indicated that if the aircraft do not approach the seals closer than 500 m at that altitude, the risk of flushing the seals into the water can be greatly reduced. While Bradford and Weller 2005 note that helicopter presence resulted in flushing of most of the hauled out seals during observations, they did not note specific distances of the helicopter at which flushing occurred.
The final IHA includes a requirement that all aircraft must transit at an altitude of 457 meters m 1,500 feet ft or higher, to the extent practicable, while maintaining Federal Aviation Administration flight rules e.g., avoidance of cloud ceiling, etc., excluding takeoffs and landing. This altitude is significantly higher than the 150 m aircraft and helicopter altitudes analyzed in Born et al. 1999. If flights must occur at altitudes less than 457 m 1,500 ft due to environmental conditions, aircraft will make course adjustments, as needed, to maintain at least a 457 m 1,500 ft separation from all observed marine mammals.
Helicopters if used will not hover or circle above marine mammals.
Comment 18: A commenter stated that NMFS improperly narrowed analysis to only consider pile driving and removal activities is arbitrary because so many of the activities that are part of the project will also cause take of marine mammals.
This resulted in an underestimate of take and improperly segmented the negligible impact determination.
Additionally, many of these activities will take place over the multiple years
PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

10665

and are therefore inappropriate for approval under an IHA.
Response: First, activities other than pile driving and removal are not expected to result in the take of marine mammals for the reasons described in NMFS responses to Comments 11
through 17 and the associated sections of this notice and the notice of the proposed IHA. The take estimate reflects the best available science, and a negligible impact determination is supported by the analysis in the Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section of this notice and the notice of the proposed IHA. An IHA
is appropriate, as AGDC expects the construction at West Dock, for which it requested authorization for the take of marine mammals, to occur over one year, and no serious injury or mortality is expected or authorized. While other project components associated with the AK LNG project may occur over a longer timeframe than just one year, we do not expect these activities to result in take for the reasons described in NMFS
Comment responses indicated above, and the associated sections of this notice and the notice of the proposed IHA.
Second, the MMPA specifically provides for issuance of IHAs for periods of not more than one year, provided the appropriate findings are made, even when the activities associated with a larger project are expected to span multiple years.
Comment 19: A commenter stated that additional potential impacts from activities which NMFS does not expect take see Comments 11 through 17, as well as the proposed Level A
harassment, should have been outlined in analysis and in the POC, as well as and in the meetings with the potentially affected communities.
Response: Regulations at 50 CFR
216.104a12 require IHA applicants conducting activities in or near a traditional Arctic subsistence hunting area and/or that may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammals for Arctic subsistence uses to provide a POC or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. A plan must include a statement that the applicant has notified and provided the affected subsistence community with a draft POC, a schedule for meeting with the affected subsistence communities to discuss planned activities and to resolve potential conflicts regarding any aspects of either the operation or the POC, a description of what measures the
E:FRFM22FEN2.SGM

22FEN2