Quiero saber acerca de...

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices Prudhoe Bay in higher densities in the summer.
Response: NMFS is aware that some species of marine mammals are more sensitive to noise than others and considers such sensitivity in development of mitigation measures. Of note, bottlenose dolphin and harbor seal do not occur in the project area, and specific examples of effects to these species are not relevant to this action.
Harbor porpoises are considered to be extremely rare in the Beaufort Sea, particularly in the project area Megan Ferguson, pers. comm., November 2019, and therefore no harbor porpoise take was proposed or authorized, and sensitivity of harbor porpoise to noise is also not relevant to this action.
Regarding sensitivity of bowhead whales, the commenter references multiple papers regarding bowhead whale behavioral reactions to seismic airguns please see CBDs letter for additional details, which are not part of this action. However, NMFS does recognize bowhead sensitivity to noise, and is requiring that during the Nuiqsut whaling season, AGDC must cease pile driving and vessels must transit landward of Cross Island to prevent potential impacts to bowheads during that important subsistence hunting period.
Regarding the comment that NMFS
did not consider bowhead whale group size, the densities calculated from the ASAMM surveys inherently consider group size, as they are calculated in consideration of many animals over a large area. NMFS notes that for gray whale, it considered group size in addition to the density-based take calculation, as the calculation resulted in a number of takes that was smaller than the typical group size.
Regarding the presence of bowhead whales in shallow water, the paper referenced by the commenter Harwood et al., 2017 references Koski et al.
1988 and Koski and Miller 2009, which found that immature bowhead whales that summer on the Beaufort shelf occur in shallow water, considered to be <20 m 65.6 ft. This is far deeper than the Level A harassment zone approximately 5.8 m 19 ft deep at the isopleth where NMFS has determined bowhead whales are not likely to occur, as no bowhead whale has been recorded in waters less than 16.4 ft 5 m deep Clarke and Ferguson 2010. Further, there have been no bowhead whales observed in Block 1a during ASAMM
surveys since they began in 2016, further supporting NMFS conclusion bowhead whales are not expected to occur within the Level A harassment zone during construction. Block 1a
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:43 Feb 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

encompasses the area between the shoreline and the barrier islands, including Prudhoe Bay.
The beluga whale density estimates included in this notice reflect that beluga whales are more likely to be present in higher densities in the summer; however, NMFS conservatively used the summer density to estimate potential Level B harassment takes during all work, not just the portion likely to occur in the summer months.
Additionally, the summer density is expected to be an overestimate for the AK LNG analysis, even for the summer months, because the data is based on sighting effort outside of the barrier islands, and beluga whales rarely occur within the barrier islands, as evidenced by Block 1a ASAMM survey data. One beluga whale was observed in survey Block 1a in 2018. However, this sighting was a sighting on search, meaning that the sighting occurred off of the survey transect, and therefore was not included in the density calculation.
There have been no other Block 1a beluga sightings reported from ASAMM
surveys to date. Therefore, the authorized number of takes by Level B
harassment of beluga whale are likely an overestimate. Even if a beluga whale did respond to the construction noise to a degree that is considered a take by Level B harassment outside of the Level B
harassment zone, such a take is likely within the margin of error of the take estimate.
Comment 27: A commenter stated that NMFS irrationally discounted behavioral harassment that amounts to take. NMFS admits that behavioral harassment that displaces marine mammals from important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period could be significant; however, it failed to ever consider whether the behavioral harassment resulting from the proposed activities amounts to take. For example, NMFS mistakes displacement of seals for mitigation when it relies on construction activities to discourage seals from building lairs near the project.
Response: Winter and spring construction activities could result in the disruption of a ringed seals behavioral patterns i.e., if a seal would have otherwise built a lair in the project area, it could be displaced. However, a seal which is taken by Level B
harassment by behavioral disturbance causing it to build its lair in a different location would still be counted as one take by Level B harassment, though it is important to consider how the impacts of different types of take may impact an individual. Given that the average ringed seal ice structure density in the
PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

10669

vicinity of the project area is 1.58
structures per km2 Table 11, and the in-air impact area of the project extends approximately 16.8 m from the project location, it is unreasonable to expect that more than a few takes from the displacement of seal lair construction, an above water behavior, would occur.
These few specific potential takes are covered by the take estimate and authorization and their impacts have been appropriately considered in the analysis. There are many other available locations for the seals to construct their lairs away from the project area, so potentially preventing a few individual seals from constructing lairs in the project area is not expected to negatively affect pupping success.
NMFS also notes that construction is only expected to occur during this contingency period if AGDC is unable to complete construction during the openwater season, and NMFS expects that if AGDC works during the contingency period, it would be because of construction delays and therefore, days on which they did not work during their planned open water work season.
Comment 28: A commenter stated that NMFS assumed that prey would not be affected by the proposed activities, which is especially problematic because in only looking at the narrow one-year period, NMFS ignored the multiyear impacts of the proposed activities that will continue for at least six years. The commenter further states that NMFS
acknowledges prey fish will avoid area during pile driving, but without support anticipates a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior.
Pile driving causes fish mortality and behavioral responses, including dispersing schools of fish Casper et al., 2017; Hawkins et al., 2014; HerbertRead et al., 2017.
Response: As stated previously, AGDC requested take for pile driving associated with construction at West Dock, and NMFS concurs with AGDCs assessment that other activities raised by the commenter are not expected to cause the take of marine mammals, as described in response to Comments 11
through 17. Impacts to prey species resulting from the specified activity described in AGDCs application i.e., the construction activities at West Dock and associated pile driving are, as appropriate, addressed in NMFS
analysis; however, it is not appropriate to consider impacts on prey from activities that are not part of the specified activity i.e., those that do not occur during the year that this IHA
covers.
NMFS acknowledged in the notice of proposed IHA that potential prey i.e.,
E:FRFM22FEN2.SGM

22FEN2