Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2

10698

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices
If construction during the contingency period is necessary, AGDC will deploy one overwintering hydrophone at the end of the open-water season for monitoring during the contingency period. Additional hydrophones during the contingency period are not warranted, as we do not expect cetaceans to be present in the area during this time Quakenbush et al., 2018, Citta et al., 2016 and while ringed seals likely will be present, few, if any, spotted or bearded seals are likely to be present during that time Bengston et al., 2005; Lowry et al., 1998; Simpkins et al., 2003. A location for the contingency period hydrophone would be selected closer to construction, and must be reviewed by NMFS, the NSB, and the AEWC, and approved by NMFS
prior to deployment.
Real-time PAM might be helpful if there were a limited ability to detect animals using other methods as required to support the implementation of mitigation action, such as shutting down operations at the time that a detection occurs. However, in this instance, visual monitoring by PSOs can adequately detect marine mammals and minimize Level A harassment take, and the authorization includes Level A
harassment take of ice seals. Further, the operation of real-time PAM is significantly more costly than collecting PAM data for later analyses, as someone would need to monitor the data in realtime, and the PAM buoys would need to be relocated for changes in Level A
and Level B harassment zone sizes between various pile sizes and installation or removal methods. Given the limitations described above, and the limited additional detection value added by the addition of real-time PAM
in these circumstances, implementation of real-time PAM is not warranted in light of the associated cost and effort.
The PRP also recommended that PSOs observations begin 23 weeks prior to construction, continue through the construction season, and continue for 2
3 weeks after the construction season ends. Given that ice conditions in the weeks leading up to the construction period will differ from that during construction as will ice seal presence, NMFS has required PSOs to observe from shore during the three days before construction begins, and for three additional days after the construction season ends, rather than 23 weeks.
During the construction season, NMFS
has required PSOs to monitor 24 hours per day, even during periods without construction.
The PRP also made recommendations regarding how AGDC should present their monitoring data and results. Please
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:43 Feb 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

refer to part V of the report for those suggestions. As stated in the notice of the proposed IHA, AGDC will implement the reporting recommendations that do not require PAM as stated in the recommendations.
At the time of publication of the proposed IHA, NMFS was still considering whether reporting recommendations h-j were appropriate for inclusion in the IHA. The final IHA
requires AGDC to conduct the reporting in recommendations i and j report received sound levels, propagation loss, isopleth distances and sound source levels, as well as sighting and acoustic detection rates summarized into daily or weekly periods for the before, during and after construction periods.
However, NMFS is not requiring AGDC
to include maps showing acoustic detections by species and construction activity type part of recommendation h, as AGDC does not intend to set the hydrophones up as a localization array, and therefore, the data will not be appropriate for reporting specific locations of marine mammal detections.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival 50 CFR 216.103. A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival i.e., populationlevel effects. An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be taken through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses e.g., intensity, duration, the context of any responses e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration, as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFSs implementing regulations 54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989, the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing
PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels.
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analyses apply to all of the species listed in Table 16, given that many of the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Pile driving and removal activities associated with the project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or temporarily displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B harassment, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in zones ensonified above the thresholds for Level A or Level B harassment, identified above, when these activities are underway.
While AGDC may pile drive at any time of day 24 hours per day, we do not expect noise-producing pile driving will actually occur at all times during a 24hour period, given the general construction process, including time for setting up piles pile for installation.
The takes from Level A and Level B
harassment will be due to potential behavioral disturbance, TTS and PTS.
No mortality or serious injury is anticipated given the nature of the activity. Level A harassment is only anticipated for ringed seal, spotted seal, and bearded seal. The potential for Level A harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the required mitigation measures see Mitigation Measures.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging if such activity were occurring e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006; HDR, Inc.
2012; Lerma 2014; ABR 2016. Most likely for pile driving, individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving, which is just a portion of AGDCs construction. Level B
harassment will be reduced to the level
E:FRFM22FEN2.SGM

22FEN2