Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices AGDC does not have a confirmed contractor and therefore cannot guarantee that a less common sound attenuation device will be available for use, as well as the tight construction schedule, it is impracticable to require AGDC to implement any other lesscommon sound attenuation methods.
Regarding the recommended use of pile caps, AGDC has not yet selected a contractor, and therefore is unable to guarantee that a contractor will be able to implement certain methods, such as pile caps. Further, available data does not show that pile caps are effective for noise reduction Caltrans, 2020.
As stated in the Ensonified Area section of this notice, AGDC and NMFS
modeled the Level A and Level B
harassment zones using practical spreading. Given the shallow water in the project area, we expect that the Level A and Level B harassment zones included in the IHA are conservative.
Additionally, AGDC intends to conduct SSV to verify sound source levels, propagation, and the Level A and Level B harassment zone sizes. NMFS intends to update the Level A and Level B
harassment zone sizes with the verified zone sizes and potentially the associated shutdown zones, as appropriate. It is likely that the SSV will reflect smaller zone sizes, which would therefore be easier for protected species observers PSOs to observe a larger portion of the zones.
Please see Comment 23 for a response to the recommendation to require AGDC
to strengthen their proposed monitoring plan by requiring that observers be able to see most of the Level A and Level B
harassment zones during the open water season.
Comment 6: Commenters, and the Commission, noted that the PRP
recommended that AGDC incorporate sound attenuation, such as bubble curtains, during pile driving. The commenters stated that NMFS did not address this recommendation by the PRP in the notice of the proposed IHA, and recommended that NMFS address it in the notice of the final IHA. One commenter further stated that NMFS
has not adequately responded to the PRPs findings that many of the applicants objectives cannot be reasonably obtained.
Response: NMFS did not respond to the sound attenuation recommendation in the Monitoring Plan Peer Review section of the proposed or final IHA, as mitigation measures are beyond the scope of the PRPs charge, and NMFS
did not find a response in that section to be appropriate. Rather, NMFS has responded to the PRPs recommendation, and that of public
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:43 Feb 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

commenters, in its responses to Comment 5 in this section. NMFS
provided an explanation of why it adopted certain recommendations from the PRP, and why it did not recommend others in the Monitoring Plan Peer Review section of the notice of the proposed IHA, and this notice.
However, NMFS has updated that discussion given that AGDC has since determined that SSV and the use of additional hydrophones in its PAM
setup are practicable. Please see the Monitoring Plan Peer Review section for additional detail.
Comment 7: A commenter stated that the latest POC at the time of publication of the proposed IHA primarily focuses on past activities and outlines sporadic meetings over five years, during which time the project has gone through multiple changes in leadership. Often it is missing important details or includes a PowerPoint presentation but no indication of the discussion. Contrary to its express purpose, this POC does not:
allow for evaluation of the quality of information provided to our hunters and residents; offer an account of any concerns that might have been raised by our communities in the public meetings;
or provide for a path forward to address local concerns. For example, these preliminary meetings would have been the place to raise the issue of Level A
harassment takes, to discuss any concerns related to potential impacts to Utqiagvik, and to discuss the contingency plans in the ice-covered season. In short, this POC does not demonstrate that the applicant has engaged in consultation with local communities that is meaningful or honorable.
Further, the POC is lacking details in Section 2 on ongoing communications.
It states Alaska LNG will develop a Communication Plan and will implement this plan before initiating construction or present. Yet it does not outline or delineate a plan on moving forward.
Response: AGDCs initial meetings with subsistence groups were part of the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA Environmental Impact Statement EIS public scoping process, so AGDC provided high-level information on the overall project and sought input, as detailed information regarding marine mammal impacts was not available at the time. AGDC has continued to meet with subsistence groups and has discussed more detailed project information in these more recent meetings.
AGDC has updated the POC to include the information that the commenter stated was initially lacking.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

10661

Regarding a path forward to address local concerns, AGDC will, in conjunction with NMFS, AEWC, and the Whaling Captains Associations from Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik, develop and agree with these groups to a Communications Plan. The plan will identify the most effective way to communicate with local subsistence users and the Whaling Captains Associations. It will be posted on the project website and sent to the organizations for feedback before being finalized. The goals along with the timeline, tools, and process for developing a robust Communications Plan are provided in Appendix C of the revised POC, available at https
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-alaskagasline-development-corporationliquefied-natural-gas-0.
Comment 8: A commenter recommended that NMFS direct AGDC
to meet directly with the Whaling Captains Associations to collaboratively develop appropriate means of mitigating potential impacts from the pile driving activity on the fall harvest at Utqiagvik and to continue meeting with the AEWC.
Response: The final IHA includes a requirement that AGDC must conduct the coordination with subsistence communities as described in the POC.
The POC indicates that AGDC will meet with the Whaling Captains Associations Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik, and continue to meet with the AEWC. AGDC
will continue to work with NMFS, AEWC, and the Whaling Captains Associations from Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik, develop and agree to a Communications Plan. The goals along with the timeline, tools, and process for developing a robust Communications Plan are provided in Appendix C of the revised POC, available at https
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-alaskagasline-development-corporationliquefied-natural-gas-0.
Comment 9: The Commission recommended that NMFS require AGDC
to 1 meet with ice seal subsistence hunters in Nuiqsut and other North Slope communities and with members of the Ice Seal Committee to discuss its proposed construction activities in the winter of 2023 and the use of a subsistence advisor as well as the possible use of trained dogs and 2
revise its mitigation and monitoring measures as necessary to minimize disturbance of seals and subsistence hunting activities, based on input received.
Response: The final IHA includes a requirement that AGDC must conduct
E:FRFM22FEN2.SGM

22FEN2