Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices at varying distances from each observer.
The PRP notes that if AGDC uses landmarks, AGDC could measure the distance to the landmarks on the ground before pile driving or removal begins, and reference these landmarks throughout the season to record visibility. The landmarks could be buildings, signs, or other stationary objects on land that are located at increasing distances from each observation platform. PSOs should record visibility according to the farthest landmark the laser range finder can detect or that the PSO can clearly see. In the final IHA, NMFS has required AGDC to record visibility conditions throughout construction;
however, NMFS has required PSOs to record visibility every 30 minutes, rather than every five minutes, in an effort to minimize distraction from observing marine mammals. PSOs will be equipped with range finders, and will establish reference landmarks on land.
The PRP recommended that AGDC
have a designated person on site keeping an activity log that includes the precise start and stop dates and times of each type of construction operation mode. AGDCs field lead PSO will record this information during construction.
The PRP commended AGDCs proposed use and experimentation with NVD and IR technology. The panel noted that there are many devices with a broad range of capabilities that should be thoroughly understood before the experiment is conducted. AGDC will select the most effective devices based on surveys of experienced PSOs and literature provided by the panel.
The PRP expressed concern about the limited effective visual detection range of the PSOs in comparison with the estimated size of the Level A and Level B harassment zones, including AGDCs ability to shut down at the proposed distances, and AGDCs ability to estimate actual Level A and Level B
harassment takes. The panel noted that effective sighting distances are likely 200 m for seals, and 1 km for mysticetes, based on ship-based PSO observations in the Chukchi Sea LGL et al. 2011.
They noted that the effective sighting distance for beluga whales may be greater than 200 m, although visibility would likely decrease in windy conditions with white caps DeMaster et al., 2001. The panel recommended that AGDC implement real-time PAM to verify the harassment zone sizes, and to improve detection of marine mammals at distances where visual detection probability is limited or not possible.
The panel recommended that AGDC

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:43 Feb 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

begin PAM two to three weeks prior to the start of construction and continue through two to three weeks after construction activities conclude for the season. They recommended archival bottom mounted recorders as an alternative to real-time PAM, but noted that these setups are not as easy to relocate and that data can only be accessed after recovery.
In a related comment, the panel recommended that AGDC report total estimated Level A and Level B
harassment takes using two methods.
First, the panel recommended that AGDC assume that animal density is uniform throughout the Level B
harassment zone and use distance sampling methods, such as Burt et al., 2014, based only on the shore-based PSO observations to estimate actual takes by Level B harassment. Second, the PRP recommended that AGDC also use real-time PAM to estimate takes by Level B harassment only in the far field, assuming that each acoustic detection that occurs during pile driving or removal is a Level B harassment take.
In consideration of the effective sighting distances included in the PRP
report, and estimated effective sighting distances from the applicant, NMFS has acknowledged the shorter likely sighting distances via the potential takes by Level A harassment considered in the analysis and has included a shutdown zone for phocids during impact pile driving of 500 m, as stated herein and included in the proposed IHA, which is expected to be visible to PSOs. While this distance is greater than the 200 m estimated by the PRP, shore-based PSOs typically have greater visibility.
Additionally, AGDCs PSOs will observe from elevated locations.
NMFS did not require AGDC to report Level A and Level B harassment takes using distance sampling methods, as NMFS does not believe that it is appropriate to apply precise distance sampling methods intended for systematic surveys to estimating take numbers in this situation. As noted by the panel, the assumption of uniform density throughout the Level A and Level B harassment zones is not likely appropriate for this project, given varying habitat attributes throughout the zones such as distance from the shore and water depth. The pile driving and removal activities are likely to further affect the distribution within the zones.
However, as a simpler alternative to help understand the potential exposures within the unseen area, NMFS has required AGDC to include an estimation of potential takes by Level A and Level B harassment based on the number of observed exposures within the Level A

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

10697

or Level B harassment zone and the percentage of the Level A or Level B
harassment zone that was not visible in their final report.
The final IHA does not require AGDC
to implement real-time PAM see below. However, the final IHA does require AGDC to conduct a SSV at the start of construction, and as appropriate, NMFS may update the Level A and Level B harassment zones and shutdown zones based on the SSV
results. Additionally, the final IHA does require AGDC to deploy three archival PAM receivers during the open water season rather than a single, archival PAM receiver as stated in the notice of the proposed IHA to collect data that indicates the presence of marine mammals. As stated previously, the PRP
recommended archival bottom mounted recorders as an alternative to real-time PAM, although AGDC will deploy these in stationary locations, rather than relocating the receivers for various construction activities as recommended by the PRP. If NMFS updates the Level B harassment zones following review of the SSV results, the hydrophones may be relocated, as described in AGDCs monitoring plan. AGDC will implement the majority, if not all, of the proposed pile driving and removal during the open water season. Since AGDC would need to deploy the PAM system after ice melt, deploying it two to three weeks before and after the construction period would narrow AGDCs open water work window by at least one month.
Additionally, while AGDCs construction is occurring within a limited timeframe, other companies have operations in the area also, which may interfere with the ability to gather baseline data regarding marine mammal presence without interference from other industrial activities. Marine mammals in the project area are migratory, so presence within the work area would change throughout the suggested monitoring period, even if AGDC was not conducting the activity.
As such, the Final IHA requires AGDC
to deploy the three archival PAM
receivers for three days prior to the start of construction, through construction, and for three days after completion of construction activities, rather than only during the active construction period only as stated in the proposed IHA.
AGDC will deploy the hydrophones in the locations suggested by the PRP as recommended by the PRP and indicated in Figure 4 of AGDCs December 2020
4MP. If the Level A and Level B
harassment zones are updated based on SSV results, the hydrophones may be relocated, as appropriate.

E:FRFM22FEN2.SGM

22FEN2