10658 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XA418] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental 

To Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to West Dock 

Facility Construction Activities 

Associated With the Alaska LNG 

Project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Alaska Gasline Development 

Corporation (AGDC) to incidentally 

harass, by Level A and Level B 

harassment, marine mammals during a 

particular activity (West Dock facility 

construction) associated with 

construction of the Alaska Liquefied 

Natural Gas (AK LNG) Project in 

Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. 

DATES: This Authorization is applicable 

from July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leah Davis, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon

request, the incidental, but not

intentional, taking of small numbers of

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who

engage in a specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and either regulations are

issued or, if the taking is limited to

harassment, a notice of a proposed

incidental take authorization may be

provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On March 28, 2019, NMFS received a 

request from AGDC for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to 

construction activities in Prudhoe Bay, 

Alaska. AGDC submitted revised 

applications on May 29, 2019; 

September 16, 2019; October 31, 2019, 

February 7, 2020; and February 25, 

2020. The application was deemed 

adequate and complete on May 21, 

2020. AGDC’s request is for take of a 

small number of six species of marine 

mammals by harassment. Neither AGDC 

nor NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

This IHA authorizes incidental take, 

for one year, for one discrete project 

(West Dock facility construction). This 

project is part of the larger AK LNG 

project for which AGDC has also 

requested a five-year Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) (84 FR 30991, June 

28, 2019) for incidental take associated 

with project activities in Cook Inlet, 

Alaska. The larger project involves a 

pipeline that will span approximately 

807 miles (mi) (1,290 kilometers (km)) 

from a gas treatment facility on Alaska’s 

North Slope, which holds 35 trillion 

cubic feet (ft3) of proven gas reserves, to 

a liquefaction and export facility in 

southcentral Alaska. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

AGDC plans to construct an integrated 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) project with 

interdependent facilities to liquefy 

supplies of natural gas from Alaska, in 

particular from the Point Thomson Unit 

(PTU) and Prudhoe Bay Unit (PBU) 

production fields on the Alaska North 

Slope (North Slope), for export in 

foreign commerce and for in-state 

deliveries of natural gas. AGDC plans to 

construct an AK LNG Gas Treatment 

Plant (GTP), which they would 

construct with large, pre-fabricated 

modules that that can only be 

transported to the North Slope with 

barges (sealifts). 

AGDC is proposing to modify the 

existing West Dock causeway and 

associated dock heads in Prudhoe Bay, 

Alaska in order to facilitate offloading 

modular construction components and 

transporting them to the GTP 

construction site. Vibratory and impact 

pile driving associated with the work at 

West Dock would introduce underwater 

sound that may result in take by Level 

A and Level B harassment of marine 

mammals in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. 

AGDC proposes to conduct pile driving 

up to 24 hours per day. Construction is 

expected to occur on approximately 123 

days from July through October during 

the open water (i.e., ice-free) season. 

A detailed description of the planned 

construction project is provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (85 FR 43382; July 16, 2020). Since 

that time, no changes have been made 

to the planned construction activities 

other than AGDC’s planned 

construction timeframe, which has been 

shifted to July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to AGDC was published in the 

Federal Register on July 16, 2020 (85 FR 

43382). That notice described, in detail, 

AGDC’s activity, the marine mammal 

species that may be affected by the 

activity, and the anticipated effects on 

marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

substantive comments from the Marine 

Mammal Commission, the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), 

the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD), the Pipeliners Union 798 United 

Association and its members, and a 

member of the general public. NMFS 

reopened the public comment period, at 

the request of the AEWC, from 

September 16, 2020 to November 16, 

2020 (85 FR 57836; September 16, 

2020). During the reopened comment 

period, NMFS received letters from the 

AEWC and the North Slope Borough 

(NSB), an additional reference from the 

CBD, and another comment from a 

member of the public. Two commenters 

stated that they believe that NMFS 

should not authorize marine mammal 

take for the AK LNG project in Prudhoe 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10659 

Bay, and another commenter and its 

organization’s members expressed 

general support for the project. Our 

responses to the substantive comments 

received are provided here, and the 

comments have been posted online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-alaskagasline-development-corporationliquefied-natural-gas-0. Please see the 

commenters’ letters for full detail 

regarding justification for their 

recommendations. 

Comment 1: During the initial public 

comment period on the proposed IHA, 

NMFS received a request from the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC) requesting a 60-day extension 

of the comment period. The request 

indicated that the AEWC required more 

time to conduct their review and 

provide comments. 

The AEWC reiterated that (1) the 

Whaling Captains, community 

members, and the thousands of Alaska 

Natives who depend on the success of 

their harvests for their food security will 

be directly affected by any adverse 

effects from this project, and that (2) 

they have a direct stake in ensuring that 

this project is properly and thoroughly 

reviewed. Specifically, they noted that 

in addition to other challenges to 

reviewing the proposed IHA within the 

30 days initially provided, the summer 

months are a time when many 

community members engage in a wide 

range of subsistence activities. 

Response: Given the factors listed by 

AEWC in its request, and the fact that 

the specified activity the IHA addresses 

was not scheduled to start until 2022 

(now 2023), NMFS elected to provide 

additional time for public comment. 

Due to the timing of the request, it 

was not feasible to publish a notice in 

the Federal Register announcing a 

comment period extension prior to the 

close of the initial public comment 

period. Therefore, NMFS reopened the 

public comment period from September 

16, 2020 until November 16, 2020 to 

receive additional information and 

comments (85 FR 57836; September 16, 

2020). NMFS fully considered 

comments and information submitted 

during both comment periods in the 

preparation of this final IHA, and 

responses are included in this section. 

Comment 2: A commenter stated that 

NMFS should address in a substantive 

manner the apparent rejection of the 

Peer Review Panel’s (PRP) 

recommendations and comments. 

Response: NMFS fully considered the 

PRP’s comments, as described in the 

Monitoring Plan Peer Review section of 

this notice and the notice of the 

proposed IHA, and NMFS adopted some 

of the panel’s recommendations. The 

final IHA includes additional 

recommendations by the PRP that were 

not included in the proposed IHA: the 

requirement for AGDC to conduct sound 

source verification (SSV) and to use 

three hydrophones in its passive 

acoustic monitoring (PAM) setup during 

the open water period, rather than one 

hydrophone required by the proposed 

IHA. For a full discussion of the panel’s 

comments, and rationale for which 

recommendations were and were not 

adopted, please see the Monitoring Plan 

Peer Review section of this notice. 

Comment 3: Commenters expressed 

concern regarding the proposed take by 

Level A harassment of ringed and 

bearded seals, and take by Level A 

harassment of bowhead whales, which 

AGDC requested in its application. The 

commenters stated that an IHA should 

not authorize take by Level A 

harassment, and rather take by Level A 

harassment should only be authorized 

through a rulemaking process and 

subsequent LOA(s). One commenter 

stated that NMFS must do a better job 

to explain how it reached its 

conclusions that there will be no Level 

A harassment take and how AGDC will 

be able to ensure that no Level A 

harassment take occurs if the mitigation 

and monitoring is insufficient. 

Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA and the associated 

implementing regulations allow for the 

authorization of incidental take by 

harassment (including both Level A and 

Level B harassment) through an IHA. 

However, for all incidental take 

authorizations, NMFS aims to avoid or 

minimize take by Level A harassment 

for all species, and, in this case, 

particularly bowhead whale given its 

importance to subsistence communities. 

As described in the Take Calculation 

and Estimation section of this notice, 

NMFS does not expect take by Level A 

harassment of bowhead whale to occur 

due to the shallow water depth in the 

project area. Additionally, no bowhead 

whales have been observed during 

Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine 

Mammals (ASAMM) surveys in Block 

1a (which encompasses the Level A 

harassment zone) since Block 1a surveys 

in began in 2016. Further, shutdown 

requirements within designated 

shutdown zones for low-frequency (LF) 

cetaceans (which include bowhead 

whales) are expected to prevent take by 

Level A harassment given the large size 

and visibility of bowhead whales. 

Additionally, Level A harassment zones 

are calculated with an associated 

duration component based on the 

amount of pile driving expected to 

occur within one day. Therefore, a 

marine mammal is not taken by Level A 

harassment instantaneously when it 

enters the Level A harassment zone, and 

given the shallow depths, even if a 

bowhead did enter the Level A 

harassment zone, we would not expect 

it to remain within the zone for a long 

enough period to incur permanent 

threshold shift (PTS). 

Take by Level A harassment of ice 

seals is authorized through this IHA. 

NMFS recognizes the importance of 

these animals to subsistence 

communities also and has worked with 

AGDC to minimize expected take of ice 

seals by Level A harassment to the 

extent practicable. As noted in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination section, we expect that 

the relatively small number of Level A 

harassment exposures, for seals only, 

will result only in slight PTS within the 

lower frequencies associated with pile 

driving. 

Comment 4: A commenter stated that 

there is no information in the record 

demonstrating that pile driving in the 

mid-Beaufort Sea, even in shallow 

water, will not disturb the fall bowhead 

whale migration as it travels west past 

the project area toward Utqiag ̇vik. The 

commenter described the 2019 and 2020 

Utqiag ̇vik hunts. Please refer to the 

AEWC’s comment letter, submitted 

during the comment extension, for 

additional detail on the 2019 and 2020 

Utqiag ̇vik hunts, beyond what is 

provided below. 

The commenter stated that the early 

fall harvest in 2020 and the variation in 

harvest outcomes between 2019 and 

2020 are only two examples of the 

unprecedented changes we are seeing in 

our marine ecosystem, including in the 

behavior of our resources. Given the 

unpredictability of our times, we are 

being forced to adapt our hunting 

practices and to become more flexible in 

our planning. As a result, harvesting 

periods and established time-area 

closures may vary in coming years. 

The commenter stated that as the 

changes we are experiencing continue to 

unfold, it is essential that everyone— 

hunters, developers, and regulators— 

increase our vigilance in monitoring 

changes to the whales’ migratory 

behavior. 

The commenter stated that we do not 

know whether, given the whales’ 

sensitivity to anthropogenic sounds and 

vibrations in the ocean, there is 

potential for deflection of the migration 

and other behavioral changes as the 

migration passes the proposed project. 

Unfortunately, based on the current 

record, the AEWC and NMFS cannot 

reasonably conclude that the 

construction activity will not have an 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10660 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

impact on our critical fall bowhead 

whale subsistence harvest at Utqiag ̇vik. 

In its initial letter, the commenter 

stated that suspension of pile driving 

activities until Utqiag ̇vik completes its 

fall harvest would help to ensure 

adequate mitigation of impacts from that 

sound source, and the commenter 

initially recommended such a 

shutdown. However, in a second letter, 

the commenter stated that it recognizes 

that because the timing of the migration 

and completion of the harvest are 

difficult to predict, a shutdown 

throughout this period could be 

prohibitive from the perspective of the 

operator. Therefore, because the risk of 

interference will be borne by the 

Utqiag ̇vik Whaling Captains should the 

project go forward, the AEWC requests 

that NMFS direct AGDC to meet directly 

with the Whaling Captains Associations 

and to continue meeting with the 

AEWC. The AEWC also requests that 

NMFS reiterate the requirement for 

signing the Conflict Avoidance 

Agreement (CAA) as the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) has 

done in its Order Granting 

Authorization of the Project. 

Response: Utqiag ̇vik is approximately 

320 km (200 mi) from West Dock, and 

farther north and disruption of bowhead 

whale behavioral patterns as a result of 

AGDC’s pile driving is not expected to 

impact individuals in the vicinity of 

Utqiag ̇vik. As described in the 

Estimated Take section, only a small 

number of bowhead whales (a 

maximum of 110, less than 0.65% of the 

stock) are expected to be disturbed by 

the construction activities, and even if 

some subset of these individuals 

deflected farther offshore near the 

project site, it is reasonable to predict 

that most individuals would likely 

resume a more typical migration path by 

the time they reach the Utqiag ̇vik 

hunting area and, therefore, significant 

impacts to the Utqiag ̇vik hunt would not 

be expected. Further, as noted by the 

commenter, it is impracticable for 

AGDC to cease pile driving during the 

Utqiag ̇vik whaling season, given the 

relatively short open water work 

window, the potential long duration of 

the whaling season, and the requirement 

to cease pile driving during the Nuiqsut 

whaling season, which occurs closer to 

the project site. As such, NMFS is not 

requiring AGDC to cease pile driving 

during the Utqiag ̇vik whaling season. 

However, AGDC is required to continue 

coordinating with subsistence groups, 

including the Whaling Captains 

Associations (Utqiag ̇vik, Nuiqsut, and 

Kaktovik), as described in the Plan of 

Cooperation (POC). This additional 

coordination may result in additional 

mitigation measures, if agreed upon by 

the communities and AGDC. AGDC will 

also conduct an SSV to determine sound 

source levels and propagation for the 

construction noise, which will further 

inform and refine our understanding of 

the distance to which the construction 

noise is expected to propagate and the 

likely impact on marine mammals 

(including bowhead whales). 

Regarding the CAA, AGDC is required 

by FERC to enter the CAA for the 

construction season. NMFS supports 

and encourages participation of 

applicants in the CAA process. Where 

measures likely to be identified through 

the CAA process are necessary to ensure 

an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses or that the activities 

have the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat (paying particular 

attention to the availability of the 

species or stock for taking for certain 

subsistence uses), similar or identical 

measures would be appropriately 

included in the IHA; however, NMFS 

does not require applicants to sign the 

CAA. 

Comment 5: Commenters suggested 

that NMFS require AGDC to use sound 

attenuation such as a bubble curtain. In 

a related comment, a commenter stated 

that NMFS thoughtlessly adopted the 

applicant’s justification that ‘‘bubble 

curtains would be very difficult to 

deploy, and may not result in significant 

sound reduction.’’ The commenter 

stated that while NMFS could and 

should require bubble curtains to reduce 

pile driving noise, there are also other 

technologies available to reduce the 

noise from pile driving. For example, 

the commenter stated that NMFS should 

consider the effectiveness of pile caps, 

dewatered cofferdams, and other 

physical barrier mitigation. The PRP 

recommended consideration of bubble 

curtains, noise mitigation screens, and 

hydro sound dampers (nets with airfilled or foam-filled elastic balloons) 

(Bellmann 2014; Elmer and Savery 

2014) to decrease the size of the Level 

A and Level B harassment zones. In a 

related comment, the Commission 

suggested consideration of other noise 

attenuation devices, but did not suggest 

specific devices. Rather, it 

recommended that NMFS determine 

whether any type of sound attenuation 

device could be effective in the shallowwater conditions of the proposed project 

site. 

In another related comment, a 

commenter stated that the benefit of 

sound attenuation is reducing risk of 

injury to seals and whales, diminishing 

the amount of sound that would 

propagate to the area of the main 

bowhead migration, and decreasing the 

size of Level A and Level B harassment 

zones. Reduction in the size of these 

zones would achieve more realistically 

observable zones (see PRP comments). 

Therefore, observers can do a better job 

of implementing mitigation measures to 

avoid Level A harassment takes more 

efficiently and realistically observe the 

entire Level B harassment zone to 

estimate actual takes. The commenter 

stated that if NMFS does not require 

sound attenuation devices, it should 

require AGDC to strengthen their 

proposed monitoring plan by requiring 

that observers be able to see most of the 

Level A and B monitoring zones during 

the open water period. 

Response: NMFS fully considered 

whether requiring the use of bubble 

curtains or other sound attenuation 

methods was appropriate for this IHA, 

and included additional explanation of 

these considerations below. Where 

conditions are appropriate, bubble 

curtains, cofferdams, and pile caps are 

generally the most common noise 

attenuation methods used in 

construction projects. The West Dock 

area is an industrial location with 

existing piles and dock structures. 

Conditions in the project area mean that 

the common practice of using bubble 

curtains for attenuation is not 

appropriate, as the water is shallow and 

therefore sound source level reductions 

are likely to be minimal (Caltrans, 

2020), effective deployment of a bubble 

curtain system is logistically 

challenging in shallow water, and there 

is potential for sea ice. Sound 

attenuation devices have not been used 

for pile driving in this area during past 

projects. 

NMFS notes that in some instances 

during the project, such as during the 

gravel pouring at the barge bridge 

abutments, sheet piles will act as a 

cofferdam. NMFS considered this noise 

isolation in its effects analysis, but did 

not refer to the sheet piles as a 

cofferdam or mitigation measure, as 

they are a planned construction 

component, rather than an additional 

mitigation measure. 

Regarding the noise mitigation 

screens and hydro sound dampeners 

suggested by the PRP, as stated 

previously, the window for working in 

this area is extremely short, and 

construction will occur on a tight 

schedule in an effort to complete 

construction during one season. Given 

the short construction schedule, 

experimentation with less-common 

sound attenuation methods, such as 

mitigation screens and hydro sound 

dampeners, is not practicable. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10661 

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 

PRP’s findings that many of the 

applicant’s 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 PRP’s charge, and NMFS 

did not find a response in that section 

to be appropriate. Rather, NMFS has 

responded to the PRP’s 

recommendation, and that of public 

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 

Utqiag ̇vik, 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: AGDC’s 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. 

Regarding a path forward to address 

local concerns, AGDC will, in 

conjunction with NMFS, AEWC, and 

the Whaling Captains Associations from 

Utqiag ̇vik, 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 Utqiag ̇vik 

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 

(Utqiag ̇vik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik), and 

continue to meet with the AEWC. AGDC 

will continue to work with NMFS, 

AEWC, and the Whaling Captains 

Associations from Utqiag ̇vik, 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 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10662 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

the coordination with subsistence 

communities as described in the POC, 

which includes coordination with the 

ice seal committee. AGDC will only 

work during the winter/spring 

contingency period in the event that 

unforeseen circumstances or delays 

prevent them from completing 

construction during the open water 

season, and intends to clearly describe 

its potential winter construction to the 

ice seal committee and other 

subsistence groups. Additionally, the 

final IHA includes a requirement that 

AGDC must consult with an 

experienced subsistence advisor for 

detection of seal lairs for activities that 

occur in winter, and must implement a 

150-m avoidance buffer in the event 

lairs are identified during construction. 

NMFS is not requiring AGDC to utilize 

trained dogs to detect ringed seal lairs, 

as there are a very limited number of 

trained dogs available for detecting seal 

lairs, and further Alaska Native 

subsistence hunters have raised 

concerns about polar bears following the 

scent of the dogs to hunt those lairs 

(pers. comm., Sheyna Wisdom). 

AGDC will continue to work closely 

with subsistence hunters from North 

Slope communities, including the ice 

seal committee to minimize disturbance 

of seals and subsistence hunting. If 

additional measures are agreed upon, 

they will be added to the POC, which 

as described previously, AGDC is 

required by the IHA to follow. 

Comment 10: A commenter stated that 

each year it devotes substantial 

resources toward negotiating a CAA 

with oil and gas companies to mitigate 

the impacts of oil and gas exploration 

on our subsistence lifestyle and our way 

of life. Thus, the analysis in the Federal 

Register of potential impacts to 

subsistence uses should begin with a 

discussion of whether the operator has 

signed the CAA and, if so, what the 

CAA includes as mitigation measures 

for our subsistence activities. By setting 

forth that discussion—and by 

incorporating those mitigation measures 

into the IHA, along with the measures 

already discussed by NMFS—the agency 

provides itself a firm, rational basis to 

issue a ‘‘no unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

finding, as required by the MMPA. The 

commenter noted that such steps are 

necessary even though a recent Order 

from FERC for this project requires a 

signed CAA before construction can 

begin. Another commenter stated that 

the proposed authorization depends on 

a CAA with Alaska Native villages, 

although it is unclear what the 

agreement will entail, and therefore, it 

is arbitrary for NMFS to rely on such 

agreements to determine that there will 

not be adverse impacts to subsistence 

use. 

Response: NMFS did not use the 

potential CAA to justify its preliminary 

unmitigable adverse impact 

determination in the proposed IHA. 

Rather, NMFS described what a CAA is, 

and mentioned that AGDC was 

considering whether it would enter a 

CAA or similar agreement with the 

AEWC, and that it would discuss and 

evaluate a CAA in the meetings 

discussed in the notice. As described in 

this final notice, AGDC has determined 

that it will enter the CAA for the 

construction season, as it is required by 

a FERC order (noted by commenters). 

NMFS’ unmitigable adverse impact 

analysis and determination is based 

upon our analysis of the impacts of the 

action on subsistence uses and the 

mitigation measures included in the 

IHA and described in this notice. As 

stated above, NMFS supports and 

encourages participation of applicants 

in the CAA process. Where measures 

likely to be identified through the CAA 

process are necessary to ensure an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses or that the activities 

have the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat (paying particular 

attention to the availability of the 

species or stock for taking for certain 

subsistence uses), similar or identical 

measures would be appropriately 

included in the IHA, however, NMFS 

does not require applicants to sign the 

CAA. 

Substantial mitigation measures have 

been agreed upon to minimize potential 

impacts to subsistence activities as 

described in the Mitigation Measures 

section of this notice. The final IHA 

requires project aircraft to transit at an 

altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) (except in 

specific circumstances, such as landing 

or takeoff), as included in the 2020 

CAA. We note, though, that AGDC will 

sign the CAA in the year in which work 

is conducted rather than this year, so 

the exact mitigation measures included 

in the CAA are not known. However, in 

addition to the specific mitigation 

measures outlined in the IHA, the IHA 

requires AGDC to conduct coordination 

with subsistence communities to resolve 

conflicts and to notify the communities 

of any changes in the operation, as 

described in its POC, in addition to 

FERC’s requirement that it sign the CAA 

prior to the start of construction. This 

additional coordination may result in 

additional mitigation measures, if 

agreed upon by the communities and 

AGDC. 

Comment 11: Commenters stated that 

the IHA focuses only on pile driving 

and does not address other activities 

associated with AGDC’s project, such as 

screeding, gravel deposition, multibeam hydrographic surveys, barge 

bridge tail wall pile driving, drilling/ 

augering noise, construction of the 

seabed pad. A commenter further stated 

that gravel deposition for the causeway 

widening and 31-acre (0.13 km2) 

dockhead and annual screeding of 13.7 

acres (0.06 km2) of seabed will destroy 

habitat for marine mammals and their 

prey. It will also cause sedimentation 

and turbidity in the project area and 

nearby vicinity. The filling and 

screeding activities will suspend 

contaminants in the water column, 

which can be taken up by marine 

mammals or their prey. The activities 

will also harm benthic organisms, and 

the sedimentation and turbidity will 

adversely affect benthic organisms, 

plankton, and fish that are prey for 

marine mammals (Bluhm and 

Gradenger, 2008). NMFS’ rationale that 

screeding impacts are discountable 

because of naturally high sedimentation 

and turbidity is inadequate to address 

the additive impacts of the construction 

activities. 

Commenters stated that more 

consideration should be given to 

potential impacts from the sources 

listed above and to NMFS’ decision to 

exclude these items from further 

analysis. One commenter asked NMFS 

to encourage organizations to deal with 

all aspects of a proposed project in 

future IHAs. 

A commenter also stated that NMFS 

provides an unsupported claim that 

because annual installation of a barge 

bridge and construction of a seabed pad 

sound like ordinary construction they 

do not expect take from these activities. 

If the AK LNG project, however, were 

not being built these construction noises 

would not occur. There is no evidence 

that normal construction noise and 

activities do not take marine mammals. 

A commenter stated that it is unclear 

if there has been discussion of the 

cumulative impacts from these sources 

(in reference to screeding, gravel 

deposit, and vessel traffic). 

Response: AGDC did not request take 

for the activities listed by the 

commenters. NMFS considers all 

aspects of a project in its analysis, and 

concurs that take is unlikely to occur for 

activities other than pile driving, and 

therefore, has not included take for 

those activities in the final IHA. 

As described in the proposed IHA, we 

do not expect take from screeding to 

occur as a result of AGDC’s activities, 

however, the proposed and final IHAs 

include a requirement for AGDC to 

follow all mitigation measures described 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10663 

in the biological opinion, including a 

shutdown zone of 215 m for screeding. 

NMFS has added this specific 

requirement to the final IHA as well. 

Gravel deposition will produce a 

continuous sound of a relatively short 

duration, does not require seafloor 

penetration, and will affect a very small 

portion of habitat for marine mammals 

and their prey. Therefore, NMFS does 

not expect gravel deposition to result in 

marine mammal harassment. Further, a 

portion of the gravel deposition will 

occur behind sheet piles, which will act 

as an acoustic barrier which further 

supports the conclusion that take from 

gravel deposition is unlikely to occur. 

Regarding the planned multi-beam 

hydrographic surveys, which AGDC will 

perform to identify high and low spots 

in the seabed prior to each season, the 

survey would be conducted with 

equipment emitting sound above 200 

kiloHertz (kHz), which (as described in 

the Marine Mammal Hearing section of 

the notice of the proposed IHA (85 FR 

43382; July 16, 2020)), is above the 

highest frequency in the generalized 

hearing ranges of marine mammals (35 

kHz for LF cetaceans, 160 kHz for MF 

and HF cetaceans, 86 kHz for phocids, 

and 39 kHz for otariids). We do not 

expect these surveys to take marine 

mammals, as marine mammals are 

unlikely to hear the surveys, much less 

respond to them. The stranding events 

in Madagascar and the Gulf of California 

(described in Comment 12, below) 

involved different sources from that 

which AGDC plans to use, and in those 

events, the sources were within marine 

mammal hearing ranges. 

NMFS included the barge bridge tail 

wall piles to be installed in-water in its 

analysis. A large portion of the barge 

bridge tail wall piles will be driven into 

dry ground, and therefore installation is 

unlikely to result in take of marine 

mammals. Please see Comment 16 for 

information about why NMFS does not 

expect take from in-air noise (such as 

pile driving on land). 

Construction of the seabed pad 

includes drilling or augering holes 

through the sea ice, an initial throughice bathymetric survey, and smoothing 

of the seabed (including potential gravel 

fill and installation of rock-filled marine 

mattresses) is not predicted to result in 

the take of marine mammals for the 

reasons described below. 

Drilling/augering and the through-ice 

bathymetric survey are the first steps of 

the seabed pad preparation, which is 

expected to begin in February. 

Cetaceans are not predicted 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). Therefore, take of cetaceans from 

drilling/augering is not expected, and 

take of spotted or bearded seals is so 

low as to be discountable. Given that 

drilling/augering is expected to occur in 

February, prior to ringed seals 

establishing lairs, we would not expect 

ringed seals to build their lairs close 

enough to the project so as to be 

disturbed by the drilling/augering 

activity. The potential that a seal might 

be disturbed by the activity and build its 

lair in an alternate location due to 

drilling/augering is accounted for in the 

Level B harassment takes, which have 

considered all likely take by behavioral 

disturbance, including that which could 

influence lair location. 

Smoothing of seabed (screeding) is 

unlikely to result in take, and NMFS has 

included a shutdown zone for 

screeding, as described above. Gravel 

deposition is not expected to take 

marine mammals for the reasons 

described above. While placement of 

rock-filled mattresses could result in 

take due to the physical presence of the 

equipment and mattresses, the 

likelihood of marine mammals being 

close enough to this activity to be taken 

is discountable, as the activity will 

occur in very shallow water (surface of 

the pad will be ¥6 ft (1.8 m) MLLW). 

As NMFS stated in the in the In-water 

Construction Effects on Potential 

Foraging Habitat section, a small 

amount of seafloor habitat will be 

disturbed or covered as a result of pile 

driving, gravel deposition, screeding, 

and other seabed preparation; however, 

for the reasons described in that section, 

NMFS does not expect those activities 

to meaningfully impact the amount of 

habitat available to marine mammals, 

and it will not result in the take of 

marine mammals. Further, while the 

project will likely increase turbidity in 

the immediate project area, this 

increased turbidity will be very 

localized and of a short duration, and it 

is not expected to have a significant 

impact on marine mammal habitat for 

the reasons described in the In-water 

Construction Effects on Potential 

Foraging Habitat section of the 

proposed IHA. The filling and screeding 

activities could also result in the 

suspension, and potentially 

consumption, of contaminants by 

marine mammal prey, and subsequently 

marine mammals, as suggested by the 

commenter; however, given the limited 

duration of filling and screeding 

activates, we expect suspension and 

consumption of contaminants by marine 

mammals and their prey would be 

minimal, and would not impact the 

fitness of any individual marine 

mammal. 

Installation of the barge bridge 

involves moving two barges into place 

against the mooring dolphins with tugs, 

where they will be ballasted and 

fastened to the causeway abutments and 

to each other. Moving the barges into 

place is expected to occur in a relatively 

slow, predictable manner, and while 

marine mammals do respond to vessel 

noise, NMFS does not expect that any 

behavioral responses to movement of 

the barges are likely to qualify as take 

of marine mammals. Ballasting the 

barges is unlikely to take a marine 

mammal, given the nature of the 

activity. 

Regarding discussion of the 

cumulative impacts from screeding, 

gravel deposition, and vessel traffic, 

NMFS has described immediately above 

(and in responses to Comments 13 and 

14 for vessel noise and vessel strike) 

why these activities are unlikely to 

result in the take of marine mammals 

and the discussion is applicable to the 

unlikelihood of aggregate impacts of 

these activities as well. 

Comment 12: A commenter stated that 

geophysical surveys with echosounders 

and sonar have been linked to marine 

mammal harm and harassment. The 

proposed project will include 

geophysical surveys conducted prior to 

pipeline construction, including singlebeam echosounder, multi-beam 

echosounder, and side-scan sonar. In 

2008, an Independent Scientific Review 

Panel identified a multi-beam 

echosounder as the ‘‘most plausible and 

likely behavioral trigger’’ for a massive 

stranding event of hundreds of whales 

in Madagascar. In 2002, in the Gulf of 

California a beaked whale stranding 

event also correlated with a scientific 

research survey using multi-beam sonar. 

While these echosounders and sonar 

may have used lower frequencies than 

the one proposed here, it is concerning 

that high-power echosounders have the 

potential to negatively impact marine 

mammals across far distances from the 

source. NMFS failed to adequately 

consider the potential impacts from 

these surveys, and it should mitigate 

them with restrictions on low-frequency 

systems, larger safety zones, and time 

area closures. 

Response: As stated in response to 

Comment 11, AGDC will perform multibeam echosounder hydrographic 

surveys to identify high and low spots 

in the seabed prior to each season; 

however, the survey would be 

conducted with equipment emitting 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10664 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

sound above 200 kHz, which is outside 

of marine mammals’ hearing ranges. 

AGDC did not propose and does not 

plan to conduct the other activities 

(single-beam echosounder and side-scan 

sonar) suggested in this comment; 

therefore, NMFS did not discuss these 

activities in the proposed or final 

authorization, and did not propose or 

require associated mitigation. 

Comment 13: Commenters stated 

NMFS must consider impacts from 

vessel noise (Erbe et al., 2019). The 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas have very 

little vessel traffic, and the Arctic’s seals 

and whales are at risk from vessel 

collisions and disturbance (McFarland, 

2017). The determination that vessels do 

not need to be considered in this 

rulemaking because it is ordinary vessel 

traffic is in error. The proposed project 

will include numerous vessel trips for 

the construction of the AK LNG 

facilities in a sensitive remote area. The 

commenter further states that NMFS 

calculated that there will be 184 vessel 

trips per year associated with the 

Prudhoe Bay construction. Specifically, 

there is a significant risk that 

endangered bowhead and other whales 

will be harassed or harmed by vessels 

traveling from Asia to Dutch Harbor to 

Port Clarence to Prudhoe Bay Offshore 

Staging Area (south of Reindeer Island) 

to the West Dock. Notably, the route 

could endanger North Pacific right 

whales. NMFS must analyze the impacts 

of the proposed action on North Pacific 

right whales whose population hovers 

around 26–31 individuals. 

The commenter stated that NMFS 

must account for take by vessel traffic. 

First, low frequency noise from vessels 

tends to overlap with the 

communication sounds that marine 

mammals use, and therefore vessels can 

mask important communications 

(Southall et al., 2018; Putland et al., 

2018; Clark et al., 2009). Ship noise has 

been associated with decreased foraging 

activity for humpback whales (Blair et 

al., 2016). 

Response: AGDC requested 

authorization of take associated with 

construction activities at West Dock in 

Prudhoe Bay. AGDC did not predict, 

and did not request authorization for 

take from vessel noise or vessel strike 

associated with vessel transit, or for any 

other activities other than West Dock 

project construction activities addressed 

in this notice, or activities in the related 

AK LNG Cook Inlet rule (85 FR 50720; 

August 17, 2020). NMFS concurs that 

such take is not likely to occur. 

Therefore, vessel transit noted by the 

commenter is not within the scope of 

this IHA. 

Because vessels will be in transit, 

exposure to ship noise will be 

temporary and relatively brief and will 

occur in a predictable manner, and also 

the sounds are of relatively lower levels. 

Regarding masking, elevated 

background noise from multiple vessels 

and other sources can interfere with the 

detection or interpretation of acoustic 

cues, but the brief exposures to one or 

two AGDC vessels at a time would be 

unlikely to disrupt behavioral patterns 

in a manner that would qualify as take. 

Please see Section 6.4.7 of the Biological 

Opinion for additional information 

about vessel noise, and Section 2.1.2 of 

the Biological Opinion for required 

mitigation measures associated with 

vessel transit. 

Regarding North Pacific right whales, 

the species does not occur in the project 

area, and therefore, no take of North 

Pacific right whales associated with the 

construction activities at West Dock is 

expected to occur. While North Pacific 

right whales and bowhead whales may 

occur in areas where project vessels will 

transit, take associated with vessel noise 

or vessel strike is not likely to occur for 

the reasons stated above (vessel noise) 

and in NMFS’ response to Comment 14 

(vessel strike). 

Comment 14: A commenter expressed 

concern about potential vessel strike 

associated with the AK LNG project, 

stating that collisions with vessels is 

one of the biggest threats to the world’s 

endangered whales. 

In a related comment, a commenter 

recommended that NMFS require AGDC 

to implement vessel speed restrictions 

of 10 knots or less to reduce the risk of 

marine mammal ship strikes, reduce air 

pollution and reduce ocean noise that 

can mask marine mammal 

communications and displace marine 

mammals. 

Response: The potential for vessel 

strikes is so low as to be discountable 

during the construction phase of the 

project, given the lack of known 

previous ship strikes in the area (as 

discussed in section 6.3.2 of the 

Biological opinion) and the required 

mitigation measures for vessel transit 

included in Section 2.1.2 of the 

Biological Opinion, which are expected 

to further reduce the potential for vessel 

strikes. The mitigation measures in the 

Biological Opinion pertaining to vessel 

transit (which AGDC is required to 

adhere to), include a requirement for 

vessels traveling between West Dock/ 

Endicott and Foggy Island Bay not to 

exceed speeds of 10 knots in order to 

reduce the risk of vessel strikes. AGDC 

only requested, and this IHA only 

authorizes, take associated with the 

construction at West Dock. Therefore, 

mitigation associated with other 

components of AGDC’s broader AK LNG 

project is not included in the IHA. 

Potential impacts on marine mammals 

from vessels involved in the 

construction at West Dock were also 

discussed in Section 4.6.3.2 of the 

Alaska LNG Project Final EIS. NMFS 

served as a cooperating agency and 

participated in the development of the 

Alaska LNG Project EIS, and adopted 

the Final EIS on February 16, 2021. 

Comment 15: A commenter stated that 

ballast water and invasive species from 

ships can have harmful ecological 

impacts that may affect the Arctic 

habitat. 

Response: The impacts of AGDC’s 

activity on the human environment 

(including invasive species and ballast 

water management) are addressed in the 

Alaska LNG Project Final EIS. Please see 

Section 4.3.3.3 of that document for 

additional information regarding 

planned ballast water management. 

AGDC did not request take of marine 

mammals associated with the 

introduction of invasive species. NMFS 

concurs that the introduction of 

invasive species from the exchange of 

ballast water is unlikely to result in the 

take of marine mammals and did not 

authorize associated take. 

Comment 16: A commenter stated that 

NMFS ignores out-of-water noise 

impacts on marine mammals. However, 

the marine mammals that are impacted 

by the proposed activities also inhabit 

sea ice and land above water. Some 

pinnipeds are equally susceptible to 

noise in air as in water (Kastak et al., 

2007). Southall et al. (2019) provides inair PTS and TTS thresholds for 

pinnipeds. 

In a related comment, a commenter 

stated that while NMFS admits that 

there are non-acoustic stressors, it 

nonetheless completely writes them off 

without any support. The commenter 

cited the following from the notice of 

the proposed IHA: ‘‘Potential nonacoustic stressors could result from the 

physical presence of the equipment and 

personnel; however, any impacts to 

marine mammals are expected to 

primarily be acoustic in nature.’’ 

Response: In-air stressors and nonacoustic stressors, such as the physical 

presence of land-based equipment and 

personnel, are not expected to affect 

cetaceans, given that cetaceans are 

present only in the water at some 

distance from shore and the activity and 

remain under water the majority of the 

time, and therefore are not expected to 

be exposed to these stressors. While 

AGDC may use barges to stage landbased equipment during some activities, 

these barges would be stationary, and at 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10665 

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. 

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 

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 

216.104(a)(12) 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 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10666 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

applicant has taken and/or will take to 

ensure that planned activities will not 

interfere with subsistence whaling or 

sealing; and what plans the applicant 

has to continue to meet with the 

affected communities, both prior to and 

while conducting the activity, to resolve 

conflicts and to notify the communities 

of any changes in the operation. The 

POC includes these required 

components. It is not necessary for the 

POC to include a full discussion of the 

project and its impacts, as the relevant 

activities are addressed in an applicant’s 

IHA application and NMFS’ Federal 

Register notice of the proposed 

authorization (85 FR 43382; July 16, 

2020). 

Comment 20: A commenter stated that 

AGDC needs to consult with NMFS, the 

NSB, and the AEWC to ensure that there 

are enough acoustic monitoring devices 

deployed and placed in the most 

appropriate locations and distances 

from West Dock. Additionally, multiple 

commenters recommended that NMFS 

require AGDC to implement the acoustic 

monitoring suggestions provided by the 

PRP, including real-time PAM. In a 

related comment, a commenter stated 

that while requiring one passive 

acoustic monitoring device, NMFS did 

not require any real-time monitoring of 

it. The device will be used only to 

collect sound source level and general 

presence of marine mammals after the 

fact. The commenter stated that despite 

the potential usefulness of PAM given 

that this is a stationary activity, NMFS 

failed to use it for avoiding impacts to 

marine mammals. Another commenter 

also invited AGDC and NMFS to 

investigate other methods to mitigate 

these impacts. 

Response: NMFS and AGDC have had 

extensive discussions about potential 

mitigation for marine mammals, 

including measures recommended by 

the PRP and by commenters. AGDC has 

consulted further with NSB and AEWC 

and intends to continue to do so, as 

stated in the POC. The required 

mitigation included in this final IHA 

ensures that AGDC’s activities will have 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected species and stocks, as well 

as subsistence uses of those species and 

stocks. Since publication of the 

proposed IHA, NMFS and AGDC have 

determined that it is practicable for 

AGDC to deploy three hydrophones in 

its PAM setup during the open-water 

season, as suggested by the PRP, rather 

than just one as stated in the proposed 

IHA. Please see AGDC’s monitoring plan 

for additional information on the 

planned location for each device. If 

work is required during the ice-covered 

contingency period, AGDC will deploy 

one hydrophone during that 

construction. Additional hydrophones 

during this period are not expected to 

provide meaningful additional data, as 

stated in NMFS’ response to Comment 

24. Further, NMFS does not expect the 

use of PAM to conduct real-time 

mitigation to be notably more effective 

in minimizing impacts than the 

included requirements due to the 

limited expected marine mammal 

vocalizations expected during the 

project period. Moreover, the significant 

additional cost and effort associated 

with real-time PAM implementation are 

impracticable. Therefore, in 

consideration of these limitations, 

further described in the Monitoring Plan 

Peer Review section of this notice, 

NMFS did not require AGDC to use 

PAM to conduct real-time mitigation. 

Comment 21: A commenter stated that 

this IHA is for activities that are not set 

to begin for almost 2 years from the date 

of publication—July 1, 2022 to June 30, 

2023—and will require a renewal. While 

the bulk of the noise will occur in the 

first year, the associated activity is 

likely to span six years. Section 

101(a)(5)(D) is intended for projects 

limited to one year—beginning to end. 

The current project is much greater in 

time and in its scope of potential 

impacts than Congress intended. 

Response: As noted in the Changes 

from the Proposed IHA to Final IHA 

section, AGDC now expects to begin 

construction in 2023, and therefore, the 

effective date of the final authorization 

is one year later than proposed. 

While AGDC’s inland construction is 

expected to occur over six years, AGDC 

plans to conduct the activities that are 

expected to result in the harassment of 

marine mammals within one year. 

Furthermore, while 101(a)(5)(D) may 

only authorize take of marine mammals 

for a duration of one year, the statute 

does not limit use of this section to 

activities that last one year or less. 

AGDC has requested authorization for 

activities that are expected to occur 

within one year, the activities are not 

expected to result in serious injury or 

mortality, and an IHA is appropriate. 

Regarding the start date, while the 

start date is not until July 2023, the IHA 

includes a provision stating that the 

authorization may be modified, 

suspended or revoked if NMFS 

determines: (1) The authorized taking is 

likely to have or is having more than a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stocks of affected marine mammals, (2) 

the authorized taking is likely to have or 

is having an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the affected 

species or stocks for subsistence uses, or 

(3) the prescribed measures are likely 

not or are not effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat. 

Regarding renewals, NMFS issued a 

one-year IHA with the understanding 

that AGDC can complete the planned 

work for which the IHA authorizes take 

within the one-year period. As 

necessary, NMFS makes the decision of 

whether or not to issue a Renewal after 

one is requested based on current 

information and the best available 

science, and in adherence with the 

renewal criteria described in the notice 

of the proposed IHA (85 FR 43382; July 

16, 2020). NMFS may issue a one-time, 

one-year Renewal IHA if upon review of 

the request for Renewal, the status of the 

affected species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Comment 22: A commenter stated that 

it is supportive of industrial activities 

that balance the development of 

resources and protection of subsistence 

resources to ensure our people meet 

their nutritional and cultural needs. The 

NSB and its residents not only benefit 

from the financial revenue generated by 

industry but also continue to rely upon 

subsistence resources. Balanced 

development helps fund State and NSB 

programs that provide many services for 

our residents while also ensuring the 

continued access to subsistence 

resources that our people have used for 

millennia. The AGDC’s proposed project 

is likely such an example, but some of 

the mitigation and monitoring aspects 

need to be strengthened. In order for 

this balanced development to occur 

adequately, we need to have (1) quality 

baseline information about resources, 

(2) effective mitigation measures, and 

(3) appropriate monitoring. 

Response: This final IHA reflects the 

best available scientific information. 

NMFS has responded in separate 

comment responses to the commenter’s 

specific recommendations regarding 

mitigation and monitoring measures. 

Comment 23: A commenter stated that 

the potential impact on ringed and 

bearded seals is a concern as is the 

inability of AGDC to effectively monitor 

the ensonified area. Monitoring the 

entire area is needed in order to mitigate 

possible takes and to estimate the actual 

number of takes relative to those that are 

permitted. The commenter further 

stated that it is important that industrial 

activities are mitigated as much as 

possible to reduce possible impacts to 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10667 

their hunters’ ability to land whales, 

given challenges during the 2019 

whaling season. A commenter stated 

that because Level A harassment takes 

could result in injury or mortality, 

observers play an important mitigation 

role. If a marine mammal is about to 

enter or is within the Level A 

harassment zone, the observer must halt 

operations to prevent injury. NMFS 

should require AGDC to have a 

monitoring plan that allows observers to 

see the entire Level A monitoring zone. 

In a related comment, a commenter 

stated that NMFS failed to meet the least 

practicable adverse impact standard 

because the proposed shutdown zones 

are smaller than the Level A harassment 

zones. The commenter asserts that 

NMFS failed to ensure that ice seals are 

adequately protected from take, and that 

rather than adopting more effective 

monitoring methods for the shutdown 

zone such as passive acoustic or thermal 

monitoring in response to the PRP’s 

comment that PSOs would be unable to 

adequately monitor the shutdown zone, 

NMFS decreased the shutdown zone to 

500 m for seals. 

Commenters stated that previous 

monitoring for oil and gas projects show 

that sightability curves begin to drop off 

at ∼1 km for whales and ∼200 m for seals 

even when conditions are suitable for 

seeing marine mammals (LGL et al., 

2011, Figures 3.28 and 3.44). This 

means that whales and seals beyond 

those distances would be very difficult, 

if not impossible at times, to see. The 

result of this difficulty could be 

misinterpretations of data, such as a 

downward bias in estimated takes. The 

situation is even worse during 

inclement and windy weather or in low 

light conditions and at night. Observers 

stationed near the pile driving activities 

would not be able to adequately monitor 

the entirety of Level A zones. 

Regarding Level B harassment, a 

commenter stated that monitoring the 

Level B harassment zone is required by 

NMFS so that IHA applicants can 

estimate how many marine mammals 

they disturbed during the construction 

activities. This is important to ensure 

that Level B harassment takes are kept 

small and do not exceed those allowed 

by NMFS. Monitoring and mitigating 

impacts are especially important for 

marine mammals that are important for 

subsistence. 

In order to estimate the number of 

Level B harassment takes, there needs to 

be adequate monitoring of the Level B 

harassment zones. Currently, AGDC is 

planning to have observers at West Dock 

and use some passive acoustic 

monitoring. We expect that AGDC is 

planning to use observations within the 

viewable zone of observers and 

somehow expand those observations to 

the entire Level B zone to estimate 

takes. The Open Water PRP did a good 

job of explaining the weaknesses and 

difficulties of using this approach. 

NMFS should take advantage of the 

expertise of that panel and implement 

their recommendations on how to 

improve visual monitoring. 

Response: NMFS is required to 

include measures that ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact, as we have 

done here, but the MMPA does not 

require applicants to mitigate to avoid 

all takes. In this case, shutdown zones 

that encompass the vast majority of the 

Level A harassment zones (all but the 

outer portion of the phocid zone for 

impact pile driving, and an extremely 

small (6 m) portion of the midfrequency (MF) cetacean zone during 

impact driving of 48-inch piles) have 

been required, resulting in avoidance of 

Level A harassment for all but minimal 

numbers for three pinniped stocks, and 

minimization of more severe Level B 

harassment. Monitoring of these 

shutdown zones is expected to be 

effectively accomplished with the 

monitoring protocols outlined below. 

The least practicable adverse impact 

standard includes a practicability 

component, and it is not practicable for 

AGDC to observe the entire Level A 

harassment zone for all species during 

all activities, given that the largest Level 

A harassment zone for phocids is 

estimated to be 843 m. The potential 

impacts of the activity were 

appropriately considered in the 

analysis, and given that the shutdown 

zones do not include the entire 

estimated Level A harassment zones for 

all activities, the IHA authorizes Level 

A harassment take of ringed, spotted 

and bearded seal, in case an animal 

enters the Level A harassment zone and 

remains in the zone for a long enough 

period to incur PTS. (Given the duration 

component associated with calculation 

of Level A harassment zones, a marine 

mammal that enters A Level A 

harassment zone does not always incur 

PTS.) There is no evidence suggesting 

that PTS (especially of the small degree 

that could potentially result from 

exposure to the pile driving in this 

activity) has the potential to cause 

mortality. As described in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis and Determination 

section, animals that experience PTS 

will likely only receive slight PTS, i.e., 

minor degradation of hearing 

capabilities within regions of hearing 

that align most completely with the 

frequency range of the energy produced 

by pile driving, i.e., the low-frequency 

region below 2 kilohertz (kHz), not 

severe hearing impairment or 

impairment in the regions of greatest 

hearing sensitivity. If hearing 

impairment occurs, it is most likely that 

the affected animal will lose a few 

decibels in its hearing sensitivity, which 

in most cases is not likely to 

meaningfully affect its ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics. 

The visibility distances cited by the 

commenter were also cited by the PRP, 

and originate from ship-based PSO 

observations in the Chukchi Sea (LGL et 

al., 2011). As NMFS described in the 

Monitoring Plan Peer Review section of 

this notice and the notice of the 

proposed IHA, while the 500 m 

shutdown distance for phocids is greater 

than the 200 m estimated by the PRP, 

AK LNG project PSOs will observe from 

elevated platforms on shore. Shorebased PSOs typically have greater 

visibility than vessel-based PSOs, and 

the elevation is expected to increase the 

distance that PSOs can effectively 

observe. NMFS consulted with AGDC 

and its contractor, who has extensive 

experience conducting monitoring for 

marine mammals on the North Slope of 

Alaska, and given the elevated PSO sites 

and equipment, AGDC expects that 

PSOs will be able to effectively observe 

phocids at distances up to 500 m, large 

cetaceans at 2–4 km, and belugas at 2– 

3 km, and NMFS concurs. Therefore, the 

shutdown zones included in the 

proposed and final IHA are the largest 

practicable for AGDC to implement, and 

that PSOs will be able to effectively 

observe marine mammals within. 

However, we note that the biological 

opinion includes a requirement for 

proportionate monitoring at all 

distances within the Level A harassment 

zone, such as a wedge of a circle, where 

that wedge contains at least 10 percent 

of the total zone (i.e., a 36 degree 

wedge), in the event that PSOs cannot 

fully observe the Level A harassment 

zone. 

As noted above, the shutdown zones 

are expected to minimize the potential 

for more severe Level B harassment take 

of marine mammals. However, 

monitoring requiring that PSOs observe 

the entire Level B harassment zone is 

not included, as it is not practicable, 

given the zone sizes. Monitoring the full 

zones would require multiple vessels, 

which is a great expense, potential 

safety risk to PSOs, and would result in 

additional vessel traffic in the project 

area. Given that AGDC is attempting to 

complete construction during the openwater period and the extended daylight 

on the North Slope during that time, the 

majority of the work will be completed 

during daylight hours, despite AGDC’s 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10668 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

plans to work 24 hours per day. 

Additionally, as stated in the Mitigation 

for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

section, PSOs will test and use night 

vision devices (NVDs) and infrared (IR) 

for nighttime and low visibility 

monitoring. The IHA also requires 

AGDC to record visibility conditions 

every 30 minutes throughout 

construction, which will inform the 

portion of the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones PSOs were able to 

observe. 

The monitoring required by the final 

IHA, as well as the biological opinion, 

will allow NMFS to have an estimate of 

the actual number of takes that result 

from the activities relative to the 

number authorized. PSO observations in 

the area visible to them will provide a 

good sample of the actual takes of 

marine mammals. Additionally, the 

final IHA also includes a requirement 

for AGDC to deploy three hydrophones 

during the open-water season, and one 

during the contingency period (should 

construction be required during that 

time) to conduct PAM. While these 

devices will not be monitored in realtime or used for the purposes of 

implementing mitigation, PAM 

detections of marine mammals will 

further inform the actual number of 

takes that result from the activities 

relative to the number authorized. 

Please see the Monitoring and Reporting 

section for additional information. 

For the reasons described in the 

Monitoring Plan Peer Review section of 

this notice, NMFS is not requiring 

AGDC to use the distance sampling 

methods recommended by the PRP. 

Comment 24: Commenters expressed 

concerned that NMFS may allow pile 

driving to occur during the ice-covered 

season. When ice covers the Beaufort 

Sea, seals continue to use the area for 

feeding and pupping. Monitoring seals 

under ice, especially to prevent Level A 

takes and avoid serious injury or 

mortality, is next to impossible. 

Additionally, because the ocean and 

lagoons are ice covered, it is more risky 

to seals because they cannot simply 

stick their heads out of the water to 

avoid loud sounds. The commenter 

stated that if NMFS is going to allow 

AGDC to conduct pile driving during 

ice-covered period, adequate 

monitoring, that must include acoustic 

monitoring, should be required by 

NMFS. A commenter also said that 

disturbing or injuring seals could 

impact subsistence hunting and 

resources. In a related comment, a 

commenter questioned whether options 

to pile drive have been considered 

during the winter months. 

Response: AGDC has considered the 

potential to conduct pile driving during 

its winter/spring contingency period. 

However, AGDC intends to complete 

construction during the open-water 

season when the additional ice-related 

concerns raised by the commenter are 

not a concern, and seals are not building 

or using lairs. If AGDC does conduct 

construction during the ice-covered 

season, it will implement mitigation and 

monitoring measures for seals that are 

expected to avoid injury of seals, and 

minimize potential disturbance of seals, 

as described in the Mitigation Measures 

section of this notice, in NMFS’ 

response to Comments 9 and 44, and in 

the Monitoring Plan Peer Review section 

of this notice. 

AGDC is highly motivated to 

complete work during the open-water 

season, as work during the ice-covered 

winter/spring contingency period would 

require additional equipment and 

include other constraints. 

Regarding monitoring, if construction 

during the contingency period is 

required, AGDC will deploy one 

hydrophone for PAM of marine 

mammals. 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). NMFS is not requiring 

AGDC to place the hydrophone in a 

certain location, as the location will 

depend on conditions in the 

construction year. As requested by the 

NSB and AEWC, if construction is 

required during the contingency period, 

AGDC will submit an acoustic 

monitoring plan to NMFS and AEWC 

for review once contractor is selected, 

but prior to the construction season. 

While the device will not be monitored 

in real-time or used for the purposes of 

implementing mitigation, PAM 

detections of marine mammals will 

further inform the actual number of 

takes that result from the activities 

relative to the number authorized. 

Regarding whether alternatives to pile 

driving have been considered, the 

Alaska LNG Project Final EIS identifies 

the alternatives that FERC and AGDC 

considered and assesses their impact on 

the human environment. The MMPA 

requires that NMFS analyze the 

specified activity that the applicant 

proposes (in this case, pile driving) in 

the context of the standards described in 

section 101(a)(5)(D), and issue an 

authorization provided the necessary 

findings are made. As described in this 

notice, NMFS has made the necessary 

determinations and issued the 

authorization. 

Comment 25: A commenter urged 

NMFS to withdraw its proposed IHA to 

allow the incidental take of marine 

mammals for the AK LNG Project in 

Prudhoe Bay. The commenter states that 

the project threatens the survival of 

threatened and endangered bowhead 

whales, ice seals, and other Arctic 

wildlife. 

Response: As described in this notice, 

NMFS has made the necessary findings, 

as required by Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA and NMFS’ implementing 

regulations, and therefore, withdrawing 

the proposed IHA was not warranted. 

The best available information does not 

indicate that this authorization 

threatens the survival of threatened and 

endangered bowhead whales, ice seals, 

and other Arctic wildlife as suggested 

by the commenter. 

Comment 26: A commenter stated that 

NMFS underestimated take from 

acoustic stressors. The commenter 

asserted that there are several concerns 

with the estimates of take from pile 

driving and removal. Some marine 

mammals are more sensitive to noise, 

behavioral harassment was inadequately 

considered, and NMFS’ density 

estimates are problematic. The 

commenter references specific examples 

of effects of noise on bottlenose 

dolphins, beluga whales, harbor 

porpoises, harbor seals, and bowhead 

whales. 

The commenter further stated that 

NMFS also does not take into account 

that bowhead whales travel in groups of 

two to five whales (Clarke et al., 2018; 

2019). Fall activities will also result in 

higher takes of bowhead whales that 

occur in greater densities in September 

and October. NMFS also assumes that 

bowhead whales do not occur nearshore 

in waters less than 15 ft (4.5 m); 

however, a recent tagging study found 

that immature whales aggregate in 

shallow waters and that habitat 

degradation or displacement from 

shallow aggregation areas could have 

energetic costs for these young whales 

(Harwood et al., 2017). 

The commenter suggests that a recent 

study shows that beluga whales have 

sensitive hearing (Mooney et al., 2018). 

Beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea have 

site fidelity (Clarke 2018) and animals 

with site fidelity can be more vulnerable 

to noise impacts (Forney et al., 2017). 

Beluga whales also move into estuaries 

in the summer to rub on the substrate 

to molt (Anderson et al., 2017), which 

could mean that they are present in 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10669 

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 CBD’s 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 

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 seal’s 

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 

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 AGDC’s 

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 AGDC’s 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., 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10670 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

fish) may avoid the immediate area due 

to the temporary loss of this foraging 

habitat during pile driving activities. 

The duration of fish avoidance of this 

area after pile driving stops is unknown, 

but we anticipate a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior’’ (Hastings and Popper, 2005, 

Popper and Hastings, 2009). Further, in 

the In-water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey section of the notice of 

proposed IHA and this notice, NMFS 

acknowledges that ‘‘[sound pressure 

levels (SPLs)] of sufficient strength have 

been known to cause injury to fish and 

fish mortality,’’ however, the West Dock 

area already has limited prey 

availability, and therefore, even if fish 

mortality did occur, we would expect 

that marine mammals would forage 

elsewhere in the vast foraging area 

available to marine mammals outside of 

the immediate project area. 

Comment 29: A commenter stated that 

NMFS underestimated take because its 

density estimates were wrong. For 

example, the density estimates for 

ringed seals were not corrected for 

unobserved animals. Also, lacking data 

for the summer and fall, NMFS simply 

cut density estimates by 50 percent 

without any rational basis for choosing 

this percentage. 

Importantly, NMFS not only relied on 

old density data for winter, but it also 

incorrectly calculated the density. 

While NMFS said that the most recent 

[ASAMM] surveys did not specify 

species, it is worth noting that NMFS 

relied on proportionality measures for 

determining the density of other seal 

species and could have done the same 

to use newer survey data. For example, 

for spotted seals NMFS assumes that 

they are 20 percent of seals and bearded 

seals are 17 percent of sightings. This 

same approach could be used to 

determine seal densities with more 

recent surveys (Clarke et al., 2020). 

Response: NMFS worked directly 

with Dr. Megan Ferguson of the 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

(NMML), one of the authors of the 

ASAMM reports, to calculate the 

cetacean densities using the available 

ASAMM survey data at the time 

(through 2018). NMFS has discussed the 

more recent 2019 surveys in the Marine 

Mammal Occurrence and Estimated 

Take sections of this notice. Further, 

while we expect that new ASAMM data 

will likely become available between 

the time that this IHA is issued and 

when AGDC begins work, given that the 

new data would be averaged with 

previous observations (beginning in 

2011 for bowhead and gray whale and 

2014 for beluga whale), we do not 

expect that new survey data would have 

more than a minor effect on the 

densities or estimated take calculations 

for cetaceans. 

Regarding the phocids take estimates, 

NMFS noted the limited availability of 

recent data in the notice of proposed 

IHA. As stated by the commenter, and 

in the notice of the proposed IHA, the 

ringed seal densities used to estimate 

take are not corrected for unobserved 

animals, and therefore may result in an 

underestimated density. However, as 

also noted, the fact that density 

calculations were conservatively 

calculated only from sightings observed 

in water depths greater than 10 ft. (3 m) 

(Moulton et al., 2002a, Moulton et al., 

2002b, Richardson and Williams, 2003), 

while the water surrounding the project 

site is shallow (less than 14.2 ft. (4.3 m) 

at West Dock), is likely to result in some 

degree of overestimation of density. 

Also for ringed seals, as stated by the 

commenter, NMFS estimated that the 

summer ringed seal density would be 50 

percent of the spring density, as also 

calculated for the Liberty Drilling and 

Production Island Final Rule (84 FR 

70274; December 20, 2019). The surveys 

were flown in the spring, when the 

greatest percentage of seals have 

abandoned their lairs and are hauled out 

on the ice (Kelly et al., 2010) and 

therefore provide the best available 

information on ringed seal densities. 

During the summer, ringed seals range 

considerable distances; ringed seals 

make trips farther offshore to find sea 

ice during the summer (Von Duyke et 

al., 2020), supporting the expected 

lower densities in the coastal project 

area during the summer months in 

comparison to the spring when ringed 

seals mostly haul out on the ice. 

Therefore, NMFS continued to estimate 

the summer ringed seal density as 50 

percent of the spring ringed seal density 

in the final IHA. NMFS has 

appropriately considered the best 

available, though limited, data regarding 

the density of ringed seals in both the 

density and take estimates. 

The commenter recommended that 

NMFS use the 2019 ASAMM surveys 

(Clarke et al., 2020) which were 

conducted during summer and fall 

2019, to apply a method of estimating 

proportionality of seal species with that 

data, similar to which NMFS did in the 

proposed IHA with the Northstar data. 

While the ASAMM data is more recent, 

most ASAMM pinniped observations 

are not identified to species, and 

pinniped observations in the ASAMM 

surveys include walrus observations. 

The reports used in the take calculation 

in this IHA to determine proportionality 

of seals in the project area do not all 

include walrus observations. Therefore, 

it is not appropriate to apply these same 

proportions to the ASAMM data. NMFS 

is unaware of, and the commenter has 

not offered, more recent alternative 

sources that are appropriate for 

calculating proportions of all pinnipeds 

in the Beaufort Sea, including walrus. 

Comment 30: A commenter stated that 

NMFS’ decision that take would only 

occur on 123 days rather than the 

AGDC’s estimated 164 days is arbitrary 

and underestimates take. NMFS says 

that AGDC will complete construction 

during the April to October season and 

therefore the take will overlap with 

some piles being installed on the same 

day and thus only occur on 123 days, 

and therefore, NMFS also cuts the 

estimated marine mammal take by 25 

percent. But then it allows for a 

contingency period in case the 

construction takes longer. The 

commenter states that activities during 

the contingency period will have 

increased impacts that have not been 

adequately analyzed. Moreover, NMFS 

states that ‘‘AGDC will only operate one 

hammer at a time during all pile 

driving;’’ which may mean that not 

more than one pile is installed on the 

same day. This underestimates both the 

negligible impact and small numbers 

determination. 

Response: As stated in the notice of 

the proposed IHA, AGDC expects to 

conduct the planned construction 

between July and October. As described 

in that notice, NMFS recognizes that 

AGDC may work outside of this period 

in their February to April contingency 

period; however, we expect 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, 

rather than additional construction 

activity or time, and we expect that 

construction during that period would 

be very limited. Therefore, work during 

the contingency period is already 

accounted for in the take estimate and 

is not expected to meaningfully change 

the number of takes of marine 

mammals. 

Additionally, as stated in the 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities section of 

the notice of the proposed IHA, ringed 

seals and bearded seals are the only 

species of marine mammals that may 

occur in the project area during the 

winter/spring contingency period. 

Therefore, for all other species, work 

during the contingency period rather 

than the open water season would likely 

reduce the number of takes from the 

project. Bearded seal densities are 

expected to be much lower in the 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10671 

winter/spring than in the summer/fall, 

as noted in Table 12 of this notice. 

Therefore, if work is required during the 

contingency period due to construction 

delays during the open water season, 

takes of bearded seals are also expected 

to be lower than we have estimated in 

this authorization. For ringed seals, as 

NMFS noted in its response to Comment 

27, there is a chance that a few seals 

could choose not to construct lairs in 

the project area due to construction 

noise in the contingency period, should 

construction occur during that time. 

However, as noted previously, 

construction during the contingency 

period, if any, is expected to be very 

limited. Further, the majority of the 

project area in Prudhoe Bay is of 3 m 

depth or less, and is expected to be 

dominated by bottomfast ice in Feb– 

April. Far fewer animals will be 

exposed to spring-based work because 

shorefast ice will be stationary, and only 

those seals that have breathing holes or 

lairs near the project are expected to be 

exposed. 

As stated by the commenter, and in 

the notice of the proposed IHA, AGDC 

will only operate one hammer at a time 

during all pile driving. The expected 

pile installation rate and number of 

piles AGDC expects to install per day 

incorporates the planned use of just one 

hammer at a time. Therefore, these 

estimates directly informed the 

expected amount of time spent pile 

driving in one day and therefore, the 

resulting take estimates on each 

construction day. Additionally, the plan 

to operate only one hammer at a time 

does not mean that multiple hammers 

(of the same or different types) cannot 

be used on the same day. Rather, it only 

means that one hammer can actually be 

operating, and therefore producing 

sound, at any given time. 

Comment 31: A commenter stated that 

NMFS’ definition of small numbers 

conflates this criterion with the 

negligible impact requirement. 

Although NMFS uses different headings 

for its small numbers and negligible 

impact findings, by defining small 

numbers to be relative to the overall 

population the criterion ends up being 

similar to the negligible impact finding. 

The commenter further stated that 

instead, the small numbers requirement 

is intended to protect individual marine 

mammals. As the Ninth Circuit stated in 

Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Salazar, ‘‘[l]egislative history confirms 

our reading of the statute if such 

confirmation is needed. The House 

Report accompanying Section 101(a)(4)– 

(5) of the MMPA indicates that Congress 

intended ‘‘ ‘small numbers’ ’’ and 

‘‘ ‘negligible impact’ ’’ to serve as two 

separate standards’’ (Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 

893 (9th Cir. 2012)). The requirement 

that NMFS authorize the take of only 

‘‘small numbers’’ of individual animals 

is no mere technicality. Congress’s 

intent was that the MMPA protect not 

only populations, but individual marine 

mammals. While the ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ standard should serve to 

protect the species or population as a 

whole, the ‘‘small numbers’’ 

requirement guarantees that Congress’s 

directive to protect individual marine 

mammals is carried out. 

The commenter asserts the IHA fails 

to ensure that only small numbers of 

bowhead whales, ice seals, and the 

other marine mammals impacted by the 

AK LNG activities will be taken. 

Response: NMFS did not conflate the 

small numbers determination with the 

separate, negligible impact 

determination. These analyses and 

determinations are not only discussed 

under separate headings, as noted by the 

commenter, but are also analyzed using 

separate criteria. 

As stated in the small numbers 

section, the MMPA does not define 

small numbers and so, in practice, 

where estimated numbers are available, 

NMFS compares the number of 

individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. NMFS directly stated in the 

Small Numbers section of the proposed 

IHA, and this final IHA, that ‘‘Our 

analysis shows that less than one-third 

of the best available population 

abundance estimate of each stock could 

be taken by harassment (in fact, take of 

individuals is less than two percent of 

the abundance for all affected stocks). 

The number of animals proposed to be 

taken for each stock would be 

considered small relative to the relevant 

stock’s abundances even if each 

estimated taking occurred to a new 

individual, which is an unlikely 

scenario.’’ 

This proportional approach relative to 

the affected population is supported by 

CBD v. Salazar, the same case cited by 

the commenter, which found that ‘‘The 

Service can analyze small numbers in 

relation to the size of the larger 

population, so long as the ‘negligible 

impact’ finding remains a distinct, 

separate standard.’’ The negligible 

impact standard remains a distinct, 

separate standard, as evidenced in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination section, through which 

NMFS evaluates the type, context, and 

severity of any authorized take to assess 

the impacts of the take on the fitness 

and reproduction of any affected 

individual marine mammals, and then, 

where appropriate, analyzes how any 

impacts on individual fitness may or 

may not accrue to affect rates of 

recruitment and survival of the species 

or stock. This analysis is clearly and 

appropriately distinct from the small 

numbers evaluation. 

For a more detailed discussion of 

NMFS’ interpretation and 

implementation of the small numbers 

standard, we refer the reader to the 

Small Numbers section of the Final Rule 

for the Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys 

Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the 

Gulf of Mexico (86 FR 5438; January 19, 

2021). 

The commenter did not explain what 

it meant by its assertion that the IHA 

fails to ensure that only small numbers 

of bowhead whales, ice seals, and the 

other marine mammals impacted by the 

AK LNG activities will be taken. 

Comment 32: A commenter stated that 

NMFS failed to implement ‘‘means of 

effecting the least practicable impact’’ 

on marine mammals by instead 

requiring mitigation measures that are 

known to be ineffective and by failing 

to adopt additional mitigation measures. 

PSOs are not as effective in mitigating 

acoustic impacts as time-area 

restrictions (NRDC v. Pritzker 828 F.3d 

1125, 1133 (9th Cir. 2016), Conserv. 

Council of Hawaii, et al. v. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, et al., 97 F. 

Supp. 3d 1210, 1230 (D. Haw. 2015); 

Dolman et al., 2009). For example, 

visual observation detection rates of 

marine mammals decline significantly 

as sea states rise above Beaufort 1 

(Barlow 2015). 

Another commenter also noted that 

the IHA must prescribe ‘‘means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact’ on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stocks 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘mitigation’).’’ The commenter stated 

that NMFS must ensure any proposed 

mitigation is sufficiently protective. 

Response: The proposed and final 

IHAs require AGDC to implement a 

number of mitigation measures that 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10672 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

would minimize impacts to marine 

mammals. These include PSOs, 

establishment of shutdown zones, preactivity monitoring, use of NVDs and IR 

(for nighttime and low visibility 

monitoring), soft start procedures for 

impact pile driving, and a requirement 

to begin construction prior to March 1 

in the event that construction during the 

contingency period is necessary. 

Further, the authorization includes a 

requirement for AGDC to cease 

construction during the Nuiqsut 

whaling season. Please see the 

Mitigation Measures section for 

information about how these measures 

are expected to reduce impacts to 

marine mammals. 

AGDC is required to abide by marine 

mammal mitigation measures NMFS 

consistently requires in pile driving 

incidental take authorizations, as they 

are considered effective at minimizing 

the impact to marine mammals. After 

evaluating all of the applicable 

information, NMFS has concluded that 

the required mitigation measures will 

affect the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species and stocks and their habitats. 

Comment 33: A commenter 

recommended that NMFS place an 

overall cap on all authorizations for 

marine mammal incidental take in the 

Arctic. The commenter stated that 

various construction, vessel traffic, oil 

and gas, and other activities are 

cumulatively threatening the 

conservation and recovery of Arctic 

species. 

Response: The MMPA requires that 

NMFS issue an incidental take 

authorization, provided the necessary 

findings are made for the specified 

activity put forth in the application and 

appropriate mitigation and monitoring 

measures are set forth, as described in 

the Background section of this notice. 

Both the statute and the agency’s 

implementing regulations call for 

analysis of the effects of the applicant’s 

activities on the affected species and 

stocks, not analysis of other unrelated 

activities and their impacts on the 

species and stocks. That does not mean, 

however, that effects on the species and 

stocks caused by other activities are 

ignored. The preamble for NMFS’ 

implementing regulations under section 

101(a)(5) (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989) explains in response to comments 

that the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are to 

be incorporated into the negligible 

impact analysis via their impacts on the 

environmental baseline. Consistent with 

that direction, NMFS has factored into 

its negligible impact analyses the 

impacts of other past and ongoing 

anthropogenic activities via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the density/distribution and 

status of the species, population size 

and growth rate, and other relevant 

stressors (such as UMEs)). See the 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination section of this notice. 

Our 1989 final rule for the MMPA 

implementing regulations also 

addressed public comments regarding 

cumulative effects from future, 

unrelated activities. There we stated 

that such effects are not considered in 

making findings under section 101(a)(5) 

concerning negligible impact. We 

indicated that NMFS would consider 

cumulative effects that are reasonably 

foreseeable when preparing a NEPA 

analysis and also that reasonably 

foreseeable cumulative effects would be 

considered under section 7 of the ESA 

for ESA-listed species. 

In this case, we have found that the 

total marine mammal take from the 

planned activity will have a negligible 

impact on all affected marine mammal 

species or stocks, small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the population size of the affected 

species or stocks, and that there will not 

be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from AGDC’s planned 

activities. Further, the cumulative 

effects to listed species of the specified 

activity in combination with other 

activities are analyzed in the ESA 

biological opinion, and the cumulative 

impacts to the human environment are 

considered in the Alaska LNG Project 

Final EIS. Section 101(a)(5(D) of the 

MMPA does not allow for a set limit on 

cumulative takings of marine mammals 

in the Arctic or other regions. 

Comment 34: A commenter stated that 

NMFS should consider time restrictions 

during September and October when the 

region is a BIA for bowhead whales. 

(Please see the figures in the Center for 

Biological Diversity’s comment letter for 

additional information.) The commenter 

stated that vessel traffic through the 

Bering Strait should be prohibited 

during bowhead and beluga whale 

migration through the narrow passage. 

The commenter further stated that no 

activities should be authorized when 

ringed seals are building their 

subnivean lairs starting in late February 

until they leave their lairs. 

Response: Regarding additional 

restrictions on construction activities 

during September and October for 

bowhead whales, the proposed and final 

IHAs include a requirement that AGDC 

must shut down pile driving operations 

during the Nuiqsut whaling season, 

approximately August 25–September 

15, though the shutdown will be 

adaptively managed based on 

coordination with the Whaling Captain 

Associations, as the exact whaling dates 

may change. Further, the final IHA 

includes a requirement that project 

vessels must transit landward of Cross 

Island during the Nuiqsut whaling 

season. Given the short duration of the 

construction season, prohibiting work 

during additional periods during the 

open water season is not practicable, 

and may extend the duration of the 

project beyond the one-year duration 

expected, which would extend the 

timeframe of impacts to marine 

mammals and incur additional costs for 

AGDC. Therefore, this recommendation 

is impracticable to implement. 

Additionally, the BIAs referenced by the 

commenter (Clarke et al., 2015) are 

addressed in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section of the proposed IHA, 

and do not spatially overlap with the 

Level A or Level B harassment zones. 

The recommendation to prohibit 

activities from the time when ringed 

seals are building their subnivean lairs 

until they leave their lairs is not 

practicable to implement for the same 

reasons stated above for the bowhead 

whale recommendation. NMFS 

included mitigation in the proposed and 

final IHAs requiring AGDC to begin 

work by March 1 in the event that work 

during the contingency period is 

necessary, which NMFS expects will 

deter ringed seals from building their 

subnivian lairs in the project area, and 

will prohibit further take of ringed seals 

during that period. Additionally, 

construction will only occur during the 

late winter and early spring in the event 

that AGDC is unable to complete 

construction during the planned openwater season. 

Comment 35: A commenter stated that 

NMFS should require in-situ SSV be 

used to ensure that the Level A and 

Level B zones are sufficient. 

Response: As described in the 

Ensonified Area section, the Level A 

and Level B harassment zones were 

calculated using practical spreading. 

NMFS expects that the calculated zone 

sizes are conservative given that the 

water in the project area is shallow, and 

sound does not propagate as well in 

shallow water. However, since 

publication of the proposed IHA, AGDC 

has determined that it is practicable to 

conduct SSV, and this final 

authorization requires AGDC to do so. 

Comment 36: The Commission stated 

that NMFS used source level data from 

Caltrans (2015) for impact installation of 

60-in cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) piles as a 

proxy for 48-in piles. However, the 

source levels included in Table I.2.-1 of 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10673 

Caltrans (2015) for 60-in CISS piles are 

attenuated source levels, not 

unattenuated source levels. Those piles 

were driven within either a cofferdam 

(see section I.3.2 in Caltrans 2015) or a 

sound attenuation device (isolation 

casing with a bubble curtain, see 

sections I.11 and I.11.2). NMFS 

indicated in the Federal Register notice 

that AGDC would not be using a sound 

attenuation device (85 FR 43406; July 

16, 2020). Therefore, NMFS’ use of the 

source levels from Caltrans was not 

appropriate. Caltrans (2015) did not 

include unattenuated source levels for 

impact installation of 60-in piles, and 

the attenuated source levels are less 

than unattenuated source levels for 

impact installation of 48-in piles. 

For impact installation of 48-in piles, 

NMFS has consistently used and 

deemed as best available source levels 

from Austin et al. (2016; see 84 FR 

31004; June 28, 2019, 85 FR 19312; 

April 6, 2020, 85 FR 21404; April 17, 

2020, 85 FR 31151; May 22, 2020, 85 FR 

40252; July 6, 2020). The source levels 

of 186.7 decibels (dB) re 1 micro Pascal 

squared (mPa2)-sec single-strike (s-s) at 

11 m, 198.6 dB re 1 mPa root-meansquare (rms) at 10 m, and 212.5 dB re 

1 mPa peak (pk) at 11 m should have 

been used for AGDC’s proposed 

activities as well (see values for pile IP5 

in Tables 9, 11, and 7, respectively, in 

Austin et al. 2016). Those source levels 

are unattenuated, originate from Alaska, 

and have been used consistently in 

other recent IHAs that involve impact 

installation of 48-in piles. As such, the 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

use unattenuated source levels of 186.7 

dB re 1 mPa2-secs-s at 11 m, 198.6 dB 

re 1 mPa rms at 10 m, and 212.5 dB re 

1 mPa peak at 11 m from Austin et al. 

(2016) for impact installation of 48-in 

piles rather than the attenuated source 

levels from Caltrans (2015). 

Response: The Commission is correct 

that the proxy source levels NMFS used 

for impact driving 48-in piles (60-in 

CISS piles) are attenuated source levels, 

and that AGDC is not using a sound 

attenuation device. However, NMFS 

disagrees that the Austin et al. (2016) 

source levels suggested by the 

commenter are more appropriate than 

the proxy used in the proposed IHA. 

NMFS reviewed numerous source 

levels for impact installation of 48-in 

piles normalized to 10 m (Table 1). The 

proxy source levels used for impact 

installation of 48-in piles in the 

proposed authorization (pk, root mean 

square sound pressure level (SPLrms) 

and sound exposure level (SEL)) are 

higher, and therefore more conservative, 

than the median source level in NMFS’ 

review of available source levels for 

impact installation of 48-in piles. Given 

the shallow water depth at the Prudhoe 

Bay site, we expect that source levels for 

the AK LNG project will be lower than 

average. (Note that AGDC will also 

conduct SSV to verify the zone sizes.) 

TABLE 1—ACOUSTIC DATA FROM UNATTENUATED IMPACT INSTALLATION OF 48′′ STEEL PIPE PILES

Processed data (# of 

datasets used to 

calculate the median): 

Source 

dist. (m) 

Measured 

SPLpk

(dB re 1 

μPa) 

Measured 

SPLrms

(dB re 1 

μPa) 

Measured 

SEL 

(dB re 1 

μPa2s) 

Normalized 

to 10-m SL 

SPLpk

(dB re 1 μPa 

@10 m) 

Normalized 

to 10m SL 

SPLrms

(dB re 1 μPa 

@10 m) 

Normalized 

to 10m SL 

SEL 

(dB re 1 

μPa2s @10 

m) 

Location Report 

TP#11 (2) .................. 10 207 192 179.5 207 192 179.5 Naval Base 

Kitsap.

Naval Base Kitsap at 

Bangor Test Pile 

Program Acoustic 

Monitoring Report 

(I&R 2012); p. 61, 

64, 67. 

TP#5 (2) .................... 10 207.5 192 180.5 207.5 192 180.5 Naval Base 

Kitsap.

Naval Base Kitsap at 

Bangor Test Pile 

Program Acoustic 

Monitoring Report 

(I&R 2012); p. 62, 

64, 67. 

A3 (3) ........................ 10 212.3 198.6 183.1 212.3 198.6 183.1 Columbia 

River 

Crossing.

Columbia River 

Crossing Test Pile 

Report (David 

Evans & Associates, 2011); pdf: 

97. 

A4 (2) ........................ 10 213.45 199.65 183.05 213.45 199.65 183.05 Columbia 

River 

Crossing.

Columbia River 

Crossing Test Pile 

Report (David 

Evans & Associates, 2011); pdf: 

109. 

B2 (3) ........................ 10 207.1 196.7 182 207.1 196.7 182 Columbia 

River 

Crossing.

Columbia River 

Crossing Test Pile 

Report (David 

Evans & Associates, 2011); pdf: 

130. 

10 200 183 173 200 183 173 Philadelphia 

Naval Shipyard.

NAVFAC Pile-driving 

at Atlantic Fleet 

Naval Installations 

(2017); p. 31. 

10 200 185 174 200 185 174 Philadelphia 

Naval Shipyard.

NAVFAC Pile-driving 

at Atlantic Fleet 

Naval Installations 

(2017); p. 31. 

10 203 187 176 203 187 176 Philadelphia 

Naval Shipyard.

NAVFAC Pile-driving 

at Atlantic Fleet 

Naval Installations 

(2017); p. 31. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10674 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 1—ACOUSTIC DATA FROM UNATTENUATED IMPACT INSTALLATION OF 48′′ STEEL PIPE PILES—Continued 

Processed data (# of 

datasets used to 

calculate the median): 

Source 

dist. (m) 

Measured 

SPLpk

(dB re 1 

μPa) 

Measured 

SPLrms

(dB re 1 

μPa) 

Measured 

SEL 

(dB re 1 

μPa2s) 

Normalized 

to 10-m SL 

SPLpk

(dB re 1 μPa 

@10 m) 

Normalized 

to 10m SL 

SPLrms

(dB re 1 μPa 

@10 m) 

Normalized 

to 10m SL 

SEL 

(dB re 1 

μPa2s @10 

m) 

Location Report 

TT–13.5R Mid (9) ...... 10 205 186 174 205 186 174 Naval Base 

Kitsap.

Naval Base Kitsap at 

Bangor Trident 

Support Facilities 

EHW–2 (2013); p. 

94, 101, 107. 

IP5 ............................. 11 212.5 197.9 186.7 213.3278537 198.7278537 187.5278537 Port of Anchorage.Austin et al. (2016); 

p. 70–73. 

IP6 (off) ..................... 12 208.7 193.2 184.5 210.2836249 194.7836249 186.0836249 Port of Anchorage.Austin et al. (2016); 

p. 70–73. 

IP1 ............................. 14 213.2 199 185.1 216.1225607 201.9225607 188.0225607 Port of Anchorage.Austin et al. (2016); 

p. 70–73. 

Median ............... .................. .................. .................. .................. 207.3 193.4 181.3 .......................

Therefore, given that source levels at 

the project site are likely lower given 

the water depth, and considering that 

the 60-in CISS pile attenuated proxy 

source level is higher than the median 

source level of other source levels for 

impact installation of 48-in piles, NMFS 

has continued to use the initially 

proposed source levels to calculate the 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

for the final authorization. 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. 

Comment 37: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS (1) increase 

the (a) Level A harassment zones from 

1,575 m to 2,249 m for LF cetaceans, 

from 56 m to 80 m for MF cetaceans, 

and from 843 m to 1,204 m for phocids, 

(b) shutdown zones from 1,600 m to at 

least 2,250 m for LF cetaceans and from 

50 m to at least 80 m for MF cetaceans, 

and (c) Level B harassment zone from 

2,154 m to 3,754 m during impact 

installation of 48-in piles; (2) revise the 

numbers of Level A and B harassment 

takes during impact installation of 48-in 

piles; (3) include Level A harassment 

takes of bowhead whales during impact 

installation of 48-in piles or prohibit 

AGDC from conducting such activities 

at night or in low-visibility conditions; 

and (4) ensure the Level A harassment 

takes were estimated correctly for MF 

cetaceans and phocids during all 

proposed activities. 

Response: As stated in NMFS’ 

response to Comment 36, NMFS did not 

adopt the commenter’s recommended 

source level change for impact 

installation of 48-in piles. Therefore, it 

is not appropriate to adopt the 

recommended changes to the Level A 

and Level B harassment zones and 

shutdown zones that were based upon 

those recommended source level 

changes, nor is it appropriate to revise 

the number of Level A and Level B 

harassment takes that are estimated to 

occur during impact installation of 48- 

in piles, as those recommendations are 

based upon a change to the Level A and 

Level B harassment zone sizes. 

Take by Level A harassment of 

bowhead whale during any activity, 

including impact installation of 48-in 

piles, is still not expected to occur given 

the water depth in the Level A 

harassment zone. Further, there have 

been no bowhead whales observed in 

Block 1a (which encompasses the area 

between the shoreline and the barrier 

islands, including Prudhoe Bay) 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. 

Additionally, in the rare event that a 

bowhead whale were to enter the Level 

A harassment zone, it is likely that PSOs 

would detect the animal and that a 

shutdown would be implemented, 

preventing a take by Level A 

harassment. Therefore, Level A 

harassment take of bowhead whale is 

not included in this authorization. The 

final authorization does not prohibit 

AGDC from conducting construction 

activities at night or in low-visibility 

conditions, but notes that AGDC will 

use NVD and IR during those 

conditions. Additionally, given that 

most construction is expected to occur 

during the open water period when 

daylight is continuous (July and 

August), or the majority of the time (>70 

percent of the time in September), the 

majority of construction will occur 

during daylight hours, even with work 

occurring 24-hours per day. (Although, 

NMFS recognizes that other conditions, 

such as fog, could limit visibility.) 

NMFS updated the Level A 

harassment take calculations for 

phocids and beluga whale by correcting 

the zone sizes used in the calculation. 

The updated calculation did not result 

in a change to the authorized Level A 

harassment take of beluga whale, but the 

authorized Level A harassment take of 

ringed seal, spotted seal, and bearded 

seal decreased. Please see the Estimated 

Take section for additional information 

on changes to the take estimate. 

Comment 38: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS (1) have its 

experts in underwater acoustics and 

bioacoustics review and finalize as soon 

as possible, its recommended proxy 

source levels for impact pile driving of 

the various pile types and sizes, (2) 

compile and analyze the source level 

data for vibratory pile driving of the 

various pile types and sizes in the near 

term, and (3) ensure action proponents 

use consistent and appropriate proxy 

source levels in all future rulemakings 

and proposed IHAs. If a subset of source 

level data is currently available (i.e., 

vibratory pile driving of 24-in steel 

piles), those data should be reviewed 

immediately and used—the data should 

not be retained until the other vibratory 

source levels are finalized. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

Commission’s recommendation and has 

prioritized these efforts. 

Comment 39: A commenter stated that 

NMFS’ finding that there would be no 

impacts on subsistence harvest is 

arbitrary. 

Response: NMFS did not find that 

there would be no impacts to 

subsistence harvests. Rather, NMFS 

found that, based on the description of 

the specified activity, the mitigation 

measures described to minimize adverse 

effects on the availability of marine 

mammals for subsistence purposes, and 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10675 

the planned mitigation and monitoring 

measures, there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from AGDC’s planned 

activities. NMFS has described the 

potential impacts to subsistence 

harvests in the Effects of Specified 

Activities on Subsistence Uses of 

Marine Mammals section of this notice, 

and the notice of the proposed IHA, and 

described the mitigation for subsistence 

harvests in the Mitigation for 

Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals or 

Plan of Cooperation section of both 

notices. 

Comment 40: A commenter stated that 

the AK LNG activities will likely 

adversely impact the subsistence uses of 

the Native Village of Nuiqsut, which 

enacted Resolution 16–04 resolving 

‘‘that the United States should not 

schedule or hold any new oil and gas 

leases in the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas’’ 

because the threat of oil and gas 

activities to subsistence uses, among 

other reasons. Even if pile driving 

activities are ceased during the bowhead 

whale hunt, vessel activities will 

adversely impact Nuiqsut’s fall 

bowhead whale hunt and possibly other 

marine mammal harvest activities in the 

Beaufort Sea. However, NMFS failed to 

consider the impacts of vessels. 

The commenter further stated that the 

decision that there will be no impacts 

on Kaktovik subsistence use because the 

hunting grounds are farther off is 

arbitrary because the take authorization 

affects the same stocks of marine 

mammals that are used by Kaktovik 

hunters. 

Response: The commenter’s mention 

of Resolution 16–04 is inapplicable to 

NMFS’ action as it relates to issues 

outside of NMFS’ authority. NMFS is 

responsible for authorizing the take of 

marine mammals incidental to certain 

specified activities, but does not allow 

or disallow the activities themselves. 

Also, the AK LNG project is not the 

same as an oil and gas lease in the 

Beaufort or Chukchi Sea. 

As the commenter noted, the 

proposed and final IHAs include a 

measure requiring AGDC to cease pile 

driving during the Nuiqsut whaling 

season (approximately August 25– 

September 15). Additionally, the final 

IHA includes a measure that requires 

AGDC to limit barges to waters 

landward of Cross Island during the 

Nuiqsut whaling season in an effort to 

avoid any potential impacts on 

subsistence uses. 

Regarding impacts on Kaktovik 

subsistence hunts, while the commenter 

is correct that the IHA does authorize 

the take of stocks of marine mammals 

which are harvested by Kaktovik 

hunters, the subsistence activities that 

Kaktovik engages in are unlikely to be 

affected in any of the ways described in 

the first paragraph of the Unmitigable 

Adverse Impact Analysis and 

Determination section of this notice. It 

is unlikely that the planned activities 

would have any effects on the use of 

marine mammals for subsistence by 

residents of Kaktovik given the distance 

from Kaktovik and Kaktovik’s very 

limited use of waters offshore of 

Prudhoe Bay, and considering that the 

planned activities would occur in an 

already developed area. The best 

available information supports NMFS’ 

finding that AGDC’s activities will not 

result in an unmitigable adverse impact 

on subsistence uses as defined in 50 

CFR 216.103. 

Please see NMFS’ response to 

Comments 13 and 14 for a discussion of 

potential impacts of vessel transit. 

Comment 41: The Commission stated 

that given the lack of stakeholder 

meetings and the limited number of 

entities contacted to date, it 

recommends that, before further action 

is taken on issuance of an IHA, NMFS 

require AGDC to (1) revise its POC to 

include a summary of all meetings held 

to date with communities, subsistence 

groups, and co-management 

organizations, (2) make available to the 

public and North Slope communities on 

a publicly accessible website its 

Communication Plan detailing how it 

will communicate its project plans and 

seek input on proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures from all 

potentially affected communities, 

subsistence groups, and co-management 

organizations well in advance of the 

commencement of construction 

activities, and most importantly, (3) 

include in the Communication Plan 

measures for conducting timely and 

effective two-way communications with 

affected subsistence users immediately 

prior to, during, and after construction 

activities. 

Response: The POC has been updated 

with more information, including 

meeting summaries (Appendix A) and 

plans for continued communication 

with communities and marine mammal 

co-management organizations. AGDC 

travelled to Nuiqsut in 2018 and 2019, 

and has had individual outreach to 

Nuiqsut community leaders. There has 

also been substantial engagement with 

the AEWC over the past three years, 

which will continue as the Project 

progresses. The POC has been updated 

to reflect this communication. The 

projected start date is two years from the 

date of submission, so AGDC has ample 

time to coordinate directly with the 

Village of Nuiqsut, Whaling Captains 

Associations for Nuiqsut, Kaktovik and 

Utqiag ̇vik and other marine mammal comanagement organizations and has 

committed to do so. Further, AGDC has 

committed to ongoing work sessions 

with a working group of the AEWC. 

AGDC is committed to conducting 

timely and effective two-way 

communication with subsistence users 

before, during and after construction 

activities, and will work with 

subsistence groups and co-management 

organizations to create a 

Communications Plan, which it will 

post to the AK LNG project website. 

Please see the POC for additional 

information. 

Comment 42: A commenter stated that 

for the reasons stated in its comments, 

supplemental comments and petition 

for rehearing on FERC’s Order granting 

authorization for the AK LNG project, 

NMFS cannot rely on the project’s 

flawed EIS or inadequate Biological 

Opinion. The commenter stated that 

additionally for the IHA proposed here, 

NMFS must define a different purpose 

and need that is consistent with its 

duties to protect marine mammals, and 

it must evaluate different alternatives 

that would mitigate adverse effects on 

Arctic marine mammals. 

Response: Consistent with the 

regulations published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ), it is 

common and sound NEPA practice for 

NMFS to participate as a cooperating 

agency and adopt a lead agency’s (in 

this case FERC) NEPA analysis when, 

after independent review, NMFS 

determines the document to be 

sufficient in accordance with 40 CFR 

1506.3. Specifically here, NMFS is 

satisfied that the Alaska LNG Project 

Final EIS adequately addresses the 

impacts of issuing the MMPA IHA and 

that NMFS’ comments and concerns 

have been adequately addressed. NMFS’ 

early participation in the NEPA process 

and role in shaping and informing 

analyses using its special expertise 

ensured that the analysis in the Alaska 

LNG Project Final EIS is sufficient for 

purposes of NMFS’ own NEPA 

obligations related to its issuance of 

incidental take authorizations under the 

MMPA. 

Regarding the purpose and need, 

NMFS’ purpose and need is consistent 

with its duties to protect marine 

mammals. It is clearly stated in Footnote 

8 (p. 1–11) of Volume 1 of the Alaska 

LNG Project Final EIS, stating ‘‘The 

purpose of NMFS’s action, which is a 

direct outcome of AGDC’s request for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to construction activities in 

Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay, is to 

evaluate AGDC’s applications pursuant 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10676 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

to the MMPA and 50 CFR 216 and to 

issue incidental take authorizations 

(ITAs), if appropriate. The need for 

NMFS’ action is to consider the impacts 

of AGDC’s activities on marine 

mammals and ultimately allow AGDC to 

conduct its activities in compliance 

with the MMPA if the requirements of 

section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) are 

satisfied.’’ NMFS’ purpose and need are 

supported by the analysis in FERC’s 

Alaska LNG Final EIS for AGDC’s 

proposed activities associated with the 

AK LNG Project. 

Regarding the alternatives, NMFS’ 

involvement in development of the 

Alaska LNG Project Final EIS and role 

in evaluating the effects of incidental 

take under the MMPA ensured that the 

Alaska LNG Project Final EIS includes 

adequate analysis of a reasonable range 

of alternatives. For NMFS, declining to 

issue the requested ITA to AGDC 

constitutes the NMFS No Action 

Alternative, which is consistent with 

our statutory obligation under the 

MMPA to grant or deny ITA requests. 

Since the underlying activities would 

not be carried out, as indicated in the 

Alaska LNG Final EIS (Executive 

Summary, page ES–6), the requested 

take of marine mammals would not 

occur. NMFS considers the No Action 

Alternative to be the environmentally 

preferable alternative as negative 

impacts to marine mammals would be 

avoided. If no construction activities 

occur, no disturbance to marine 

mammals would occur from pile driving 

associated with construction of the LNG 

facilities and pipelines/transmission 

lines. 

The other alternative NMFS considers 

is its Proposed Action, which called for 

issuance of an ITA to the applicant, 

AGDC, to authorize the requested take 

subject to specified requirements, 

including mitigation, monitoring and 

reporting requirements. As part of this 

alternative, and through the public and 

agency review processes under NEPA 

and MMPA, NMFS considers a range of 

mitigation measures to carry out its duty 

to identify other means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

species or stocks that are the subject of 

the ITA request. For AGDC’s 

construction activities in Prudhoe Bay, 

these measures were initially identified 

in the proposed IHA (85 FR 43382; July 

16, 2020) and modified for this final 

IHA in response to public comment and 

agency review. The Proposed Action 

alternative considered by NMFS is 

consistent with the Proposed Action 

(Preferred Alternative) evaluated by 

FERC, as it would provide the ITAs 

necessary to achieve the activities 

identified in that alternative and 

analyzed in the Alaska LNG Project 

Final EIS. 

Finally, NMFS’ Proposed Action to 

issue ITAs to AGDC for construction 

activities associated with the AK LNG 

Project and FERC’s Proposed Action 

(also the Preferred Alternative) 

effectively meet NMFS’ stated purpose 

and need for acting. NMFS has an 

obligation to issue a requested ITA if 

certain statutory and regulatory 

determinations are made after providing 

for adequate public review and 

comment concerning the ITA request. 

Denying the application, as would be 

required under the No Action 

Alternative, would be contrary to 

NMFS’ responsibilities, given the results 

of the analysis conducted under the 

MMPA, and would thus not support 

NMFS’ ability to meet its purpose and 

need for acting. 

This approach to evaluating a 

reasonable range of alternatives is 

consistent with NMFS policy and 

practice for issuing MMPA incidental 

take authorizations. NMFS has 

independently reviewed and evaluated 

the Alaska LNG Project Final EIS, 

including the range of alternatives, and 

determined that the EIS fully satisfies 

NMFS’ NEPA obligations related to its 

decision to issue this IHA, and we have 

adopted it. 

Regarding the Biological Opinion, 

NMFS consulted internally with NMFS’ 

Alaska Regional Office (AKRO). AKRO 

conducted a thorough analysis and we 

refer any questions or comments on that 

document to the AKRO. 

Please see the mitigation-related 

comments for a response to the 

commenter’s recommendations for 

inclusion of measures that would 

mitigate adverse effects on Arctic 

marine mammals. 

Comment 43: The Commission stated 

that although operators are generally 

able to complete the installation of a 

pile if visibility becomes limited due to 

nightfall or deteriorating weather 

conditions, NMFS does not typically 

allow pile driving to occur 24-hours a 

day in its authorizations. It is not clear 

whether AGDC has discussed its plans 

to conduct pile driving at night with 

local communities, as no reference was 

made to nighttime pile driving in the 

outreach materials provided in the POC. 

Concerns have been raised by Native 

Alaskan communities about activities 

occurring ‘‘all night long’’ for other 

projects. Restricting pile driving to 

daylight hours would help to ensure 

that AGDC is effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on affected 

species. The Commission recommended 

that NMFS include in the final 

authorization the requirement that 

AGDC conduct pile driving activities 

during daylight hours only. 

Response: NMFS analyzes the action 

that an applicant has proposed. While 

many applicants propose to conduct 

pile driving during daylight hours only, 

in which case NMFS discusses that in 

the Federal Register notice, and 

sometimes elects to include it in the 

IHA itself, AGDC proposed to conduct 

pile driving up to 24-hours per day. 

Work is expected to start in July, 

when there are 24 hours of available 

sunlight for visibility, so the crews will 

do their best to get as much done in the 

early months of the project as possible. 

As the available daylight wanes and fall 

approaches, AGDC will test NVDs to 

detect marine mammals in low 

visibility. If these devices do not prove 

to be effective in detecting marine 

mammals, lighting will be used to 

monitor the immediate area around the 

pile driving work. 

The open water season is extremely 

short, and therefore, the ability to work 

24-hours per day is a key component to 

AGDC’s ability to complete construction 

on time, particularly given the 

requirement for AGDC to shut down 

work during Nuiqsut whaling. Shorter 

workdays would likely extend the 

number of days required for the work 

(extending the overall duration of 

impacts on marine mammals), and 

could require a second work season and 

involve significant equipment and 

manpower expense, which is 

impracticable. 

In AGDC’s most recent project update 

to AEWC in the Third Triannual 

Meeting (10/28/2020), AGDC discussed 

pile driving plans, including the 24 

hour work day. 

Comment 44: To ensure that seal lairs 

in the construction area are identified 

and avoided as proposed, the 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

include in the final authorization the 

requirement that AGDC (1) use an 

experienced subsistence advisor, and 

consider the use of trained dogs, to 

detect seal lairs before construction 

activities begin and (2) require 

construction crews to avoid seal lairs by 

at least 150 m. 

Response: As stated in the notice of 

the proposed IHA, AGDC plans to 

consult an experienced subsistence 

advisor for detection of seal lairs during 

construction activities that occur in 

winter. The advisor would survey areas 

within a buffer zone of Dock Head 4 

(DH4) where water depth is greater than 

3 m (10 ft) to identify potential ringed 

seal structures before activities begin. 

AGDC will avoid identified ringed seal 

structures by a minimum of 150 m (500 

ft). The subsistence advisor and 150 m 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10677 

buffer requirements have been added to 

the final IHA. 

Although trained dogs may be 

effective in identifying seals, there are a 

limited number of trained dogs 

available. Further, Alaska Native 

subsistence hunters have previously 

indicated that polar bears often follow 

the scent of the dogs to hunt those lairs 

(pers. comm., Sheyna Wisdom). 

Therefore, NMFS has not required the 

use of dogs for detection of seal lairs as 

suggested by the commenter. 

Comment 45: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS (1) reinforce 

that AGDC keep a running tally of the 

total takes, based on observed and 

extrapolated takes, for Level A and B 

harassment consistent with condition 

4(h) of the final authorization, (2) 

include condition 6(b)(xix) in the final 

authorization, and, if necessary, (3) 

provide AGDC a simple example of how 

to extrapolate takes to estimate the 

number of total takes. 

Response: The IHA indicates the 

number of takes authorized for each 

species. We agree that AGDC must 

ensure they do not exceed authorized 

takes, but do not concur with the 

recommendation to keep a running tally 

of extrapolated takes, as that is not 

necessary to ensure compliance with the 

IHA. CFR 216.108(c) requires a 

monitoring program to ‘‘document or 

estimate the actual level of take.’’ The 

final authorization includes measure 

6(b)(xix) from the proposed IHA, though 

it is now measure 6(b)(xviii) and NMFS 

slightly modified it to clarify that rather 

than precisely extrapolating the 

observed take, AGDC will estimate 

potential exposures within the entire 

harassment zones based upon the 

number of observed exposures and the 

percentage of the Level A or Level B 

harassment zone that was not visible. 

NMFS is not prescribing an exact 

method for how AGDC should calculate 

the estimate of total potential takes. 

Comment 46: The Commission stated 

that it has raised ongoing concerns 

regarding NMFS’s renewal process in 

the past few years, and notes that 

although NMFS responded generally to 

those concerns just recently, the 

Commission has not yet had time to 

consider fully whether and how it plans 

to respond. For purposes of its comment 

letter regarding this IHA, the 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

refrain from issuing a renewal for any 

authorization unless it is consistent 

with the procedural requirements 

specified in section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of 

the MMPA. 

Response: In prior responses to 

comments about IHA Renewals (e.g., 84 

FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR 

53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS has 

explained how the Renewal process, as 

implemented, is consistent with the 

statutory requirements contained in 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

provides additional efficiencies beyond 

the use of abbreviated notices, and 

further, promotes NMFS’ goals of 

improving conservation of marine 

mammals and increasing efficiency in 

the MMPA compliance process. 

Therefore, we intend to continue 

implementing the Renewal process as a 

general matter. 

Comment 47: A commenter stated that 

NMFS should avoid a one-year renewal. 

It further stated that the potential 

extension and overlap of activities 

should be avoided. 

Response: The commenter does not 

state what it is referring to regarding 

‘‘overlap of activities’’ that it suggests 

should be avoided by not issuing a 

renewal. NMFS makes the decision of 

whether or not to issue a Renewal after 

one is requested based on current 

information and the best available 

science. 

Comment 48: The Commission stated 

that NMFS’ review processes (including 

its early review team meetings) are not 

adequately identifying and evaluating 

whether appropriate source levels, Level 

A harassment inputs, modeling 

methodologies, Level A and B 

harassment zones, densities, group size 

estimates, take estimates, shutdown 

zones, etc. have been proposed. The 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

make a concerted effort to review 

applications, Federal Register notices, 

and draft and final authorizations more 

thoroughly to minimize inaccuracies 

and ensure transparency for the public. 

In this instance, the information 

provided to the PRP was not accurate 

and the panel’s review of AGDC’s 

monitoring plan as required under 

section 101(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III) may have 

been compromised. NMFS should 

provide the PRP with the revised Level 

A and B harassment zones and 

shutdown zones and allow for 

additional review and comments before 

issuing any IHA to AGDC. NMFS also 

should consider whether the 

inaccuracies are sufficient to warrant 

revision and re-publication of the 

proposed IHA. 

Response: While we acknowledge that 

errors are sometimes made, we disagree 

with the Commission’s assertion that 

NMFS’ review of the issues raised is 

broadly inadequate. Nonetheless, we 

continue to look for ways to improve 

our methods, analyses, and review 

process. Regarding the specific example 

raised, as explained in response to 

Comment 36, NMFS disagrees with the 

Commission regarding their 

recommended source level revision, and 

has not incorporated that 

recommendation into this final IHA. 

Therefore, the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones and the shutdown 

zones did not change, and the 

recommendation to provide the PRP 

with updated Level A and Level B 

harassment zones and shutdown zones 

is not necessary, nor is re-publication of 

the proposed IHA. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to 

Final IHA 

The proposed IHA indicated that the 

authorization would be effective from 

July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023. However, 

AGDC has since indicated that it does 

not expect to begin construction prior to 

July 1, 2023; therefore, this final IHA is 

effective from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 

2024. 

NMFS also added several mitigation 

and monitoring requirements to the 

final IHA in consideration of public 

comments received. NMFS added an 

explicit requirement for AGDC to abide 

by its POC. Additionally, NMFS added 

a measure that requires AGDC to consult 

an experienced subsistence advisor for 

detection of ringed seal lairs during 

winter construction activities, should 

they occur, and a measure requiring 

AGDC to implement a 150 m buffer 

between identified ringed seal lairs and 

construction activities. Both measures 

related to ringed seal lairs were 

discussed in the notice of the proposed 

IHA as measures that AGDC intended to 

implement, but had not been included 

in the proposed IHA. The final IHA also 

includes a requirement for aircraft to 

transit at a minimum altitude of 457 m 

(1,500 ft) or higher to the extent 

practicable, as well as a shutdown zone 

for screeding activities. Both the aircraft 

and screeding measures were included 

in the biological opinion, which AGDC 

is required to follow, as stated in both 

the proposed and final IHAs. The final 

IHA also includes a measure that 

requires vessels to transit landward of 

Cross Island during the entirety of the 

Nuiqsut whaling season (approximately 

August 25–September 15, though the 

exact dates may change). This measure 

was already included in the POC. 

Since publication of the proposed 

IHA, through discussions with the 

AEWC and NMFS, AGDC has 

determined that it is practicable to 

increase the acoustic monitoring it will 

conduct. The final IHA requires AGDC 

to conduct SSV for pile driving, and 

includes additional requirements for an 

acoustic monitoring plan and acoustic 

monitoring report, including some 

reporting metrics recommended by the 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10678 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

PRP. The IHA allows NMFS to update 

the Level A and Level B harassment 

zones and shutdown zones, as 

appropriate, pending review and 

approval of the results of the acoustic 

monitoring. Additionally, the final IHA 

requires AGDC to deploy three 

hydrophones during construction in the 

open-water season, rather than just one, 

as stated in the proposed IHA. AGDC 

will deploy the hydrophones three days 

prior to the start of construction, and 

they will remain deployed through 

construction and for three days after the 

completion of construction. AGDC will 

still deploy just one hydrophone during 

the ice-cover season, should AGDC need 

conduct construction activities during 

that time. As stated in the proposed 

IHA, these hydrophones will be used for 

PAM of marine mammals, but will not 

be monitored in real time or used for 

mitigation. The final IHA also includes 

an additional reporting measure related 

to PAM for marine mammals which was 

suggested by the PRP, requiring AGDC 

to report marine mammal detection 

rates from PAM, summarized into daily 

or weekly periods. AGDC will include 

this information in its acoustic 

monitoring report, but is not required to 

submit this information to NMFS on a 

daily or weekly basis throughout the 

project duration. 

The final IHA includes several slight 

modifications to the take estimate. 

NMFS updated the Level A harassment 

take calculations for phocids and beluga 

whale by correcting the zone sizes used 

in the calculation. The updated 

calculation did not result in a change to 

the authorized Level A harassment take 

of beluga whale, but the authorized 

Level A harassment take of ringed seal, 

spotted seal, and bearded seal 

decreased. Additionally, NMFS updated 

the Level B harassment take estimate for 

beluga whales to account for an 

increased density due to the 

incorporation of recently-available 2019 

ASAMM survey data (Clarke et al., 

2020). The resulting Level B harassment 

take estimate for beluga whales 

increased to 55 Level B harassment 

takes in the final IHA from the 31 Level 

B harassment takes estimated in the 

proposed IHA. Please see the Estimated 

Take section for additional information 

on changes to the take estimate. 

Finally, since publication of the 

proposed IHA, NMFS published a 

proposed rule for the Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Beringia Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) of the 

Bearded Seal (86 FR 1433; January 8, 

2021), and a revised proposed rule for 

the Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal 

(86 FR 1452; January 8, 2021). Please see 

the Description of Marine Mammals in 

the Area of Specified Activities section 

for additional information. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Additional information may be found in 

the Aerial Survey of Arctic Marine 

Mammals (ASAMM) reports, which are 

available online at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marinemammal-protection/aerial-surveysarctic-marine-mammals. 

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this action, and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and ESA and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

For taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2019). PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs 

(e.g., Muto et al., 2019). All values 

presented in Table 2 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication and 

are available in the 2019 Pacific and 

Alaska SARs (Carretta et al., 2019; Muto 

et al., 2019) and draft 2020 Alaska SARs 

(published since publication of the 

proposed IHA and available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports). 

TABLE 2—SPECIES FOR WHICH TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO OCCUR

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ........................... Eschrichtius robustus .......... Eastern North Pacific ........... -/-; N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) 801 ................ 131 

Family Balaenidae: 

Bowhead whale ............ Balaena mysticetus ............. Western Arctic ..................... E/D; Y 16,820 (0.052, 16,100, 

2011).

161 ................ 56 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Beluga whale ................ Delphinapterus leucas ......... Beaufort Sea ........................

Eastern Chukchi Sea ...........

-/-; N 

-/-; N 

39,258 (0.229, NA, 1992) ....

13,305 (0.51, 8,875, 2017) ..

UND ..............

178 ................

102 

55 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10679 

TABLE 2—SPECIES FOR WHICH TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO OCCUR—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Ringed seal ................... Phoca (pusa) hispida ........... Arctic .................................... T/D; Y see SAR (see SAR, see 

SAR, 2012–2013.

6,459 ............. 863 

Spotted seal .................. Phoca largha ....................... Bering .................................. -/-; N 461,625 (see SAR, 423,237, 

2013).

25,394 ........... 5,254 

Bearded seal ................ Erignathus barbatus ............ Beringia ................................ T/D; Y see SAR (see SAR, see 

SAR, 2012–2013.

See SAR ....... 6,709 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). 

As indicated above, all six species 

(with seven managed stocks) in Table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we have 

authorized take. While a harbor 

porpoise was sighted in the 2017 

ASAMM survey (Clarke et al., 2018), the 

spatial occurrence of harbor porpoise is 

such that take is not expected to occur, 

and they are not discussed further 

beyond the explanation provided here. 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 

are considered to be extremely rare in 

the Beaufort Sea, particularly in the 

project area (Megan Ferguson, pers. 

comm., November 2019). 

In addition, the polar bear may be 

found in Prudhoe Bay. However, polar 

bears are managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and are not considered 

further in this document. 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by AGDC’s 

project, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR 

43382; July 16, 2020); since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks, other 

than the proposed critical habitat 

designations under the ESA for the 

Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal and 

the Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed 

Seal, discussed below; therefore, other 

than the critical habitat discussion, 

detailed descriptions are not provided 

here. Please refer to that Federal 

Register notice for these descriptions. 

Please also refer to NMFS’ website 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies) for generalized species 

accounts. 

Critical Habitat 

On January 8, 2021, NMFS published 

a proposed rule for the Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Beringia DPS of 

the Bearded Seal (86 FR 1433). NMFS 

identified the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species: (1) Sea ice habitat suitable 

for whelping and nursing, which is 

defined as areas with waters 200 m or 

less in depth containing pack ice of at 

least 25 percent concentration and 

providing bearded seals access to those 

waters from the ice; (2) sea ice habitat 

suitable as a platform for molting, which 

is defined as areas with waters 200 m or 

less in depth containing pack ice of at 

least 15 percent concentration and 

providing bearded seals access to those 

waters from the ice; (3) primary prey 

resources to support bearded seals in 

waters 200 m or less in depth: benthic 

organisms, including epifaunal and 

infaunal invertebrates, and demersal 

and schooling pelagic fishes; and (4) 

acoustic conditions that allow for 

effective communication by bearded 

seals for breeding purposes within 

waters used by breeding bearded seals. 

The proposed designation under the 

ESA comprises a specific area of marine 

habitat in the Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort seas, extending from mean 

lower low water (MLLW) to a depth of 

200 m within the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ), including this 

construction project’s Level A and Level 

B harassment zones (see 86 FR 1433, 

January 8, 2021 for additional detail and 

a map of the proposed area). 

On January 8, 2021, NMFS also 

published a revised proposed rule for 

the Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal 

(86 FR 1452). This proposed rule revises 

NMFS’ December 9, 2014, proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Arctic subspecies of the ringed seal 

under the ESA. NMFS identified the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species: (1) Snow-covered sea ice 

habitat suitable for the formation and 

maintenance of subnivean birth lairs 

used for sheltering pups during 

whelping and nursing, which is defined 

as areas of seasonal landfast (shorefast) 

ice and dense, stable pack ice, excluding 

any bottom-fast ice extending seaward 

from the coastline (typically in waters 

less than 2 m deep), that have 

undergone deformation and contain 

snowdrifts of sufficient depth, typically 

at least 54 cm deep; (2) Sea ice habitat 

suitable as a platform for basking and 

molting, which is defined as areas 

containing sea ice of 15 percent or more 

concentration, excluding any bottomfast ice extending seaward from the 

coastline (typically in waters less than 

2 m deep); and (3) Primary prey 

resources to support Arctic ringed seals, 

which are defined to be Arctic cod, 

saffron cod, shrimps, and amphipods. 

The revised proposed designation 

comprises a specific area of marine 

habitat in the Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort seas, extending from MLLW to 

an offshore limit within the U.S. EEZ, 

including this construction project’s 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

(see 86 FR 1452; January 8, 2021 for 

additional detail and a map of the 

proposed area). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

AGDC’s construction activities have the 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10680 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the survey area. The notice 

of proposed IHA (85 FR 43382; July 16, 

2020) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from AGDC’s 

construction activities on marine 

mammals and their habitat. That 

information and analysis is incorporated 

by reference into this final IHA 

determination and is not repeated here; 

please refer to the notice of proposed 

IHA (85 FR 43382; July 16, 2020). 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). Authorized takes 

would primarily be by Level B 

harassment, as use of the acoustic 

source (i.e., vibratory and impact pile 

driving) has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result, primarily 

for phocids, due to their lack of 

visibility and the size of the Level A 

harassment zones. Auditory injury is 

unlikely to occur to cetaceans for the 

reasons described in the Take 

Calculation and Estimation section, 

below. The mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to minimize the 

severity of the taking to the extent 

practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the take 

estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

AGDC’s construction activity includes 

the use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving) and impulsive (impact pile 

driving) sources, and therefore the 120 

and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). AGDC’s construction 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

(impact pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10681 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

planned project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., vibratory pile driving 

and removal). The maximum 

(underwater) area ensonified above the 

thresholds for behavioral harassment 

referenced above is 67.7 km2 (26.1 mi2), 

and the calculated distance to the 

farthest behavioral isopleth is 

approximately 4.6 km (2.9 mi). 

The project includes vibratory pile 

installation and removal and impact 

pile installation. Source levels for these 

activities are based on reviews of 

measurements of the same or similar 

types and dimensions of piles available 

in the literature. Source levels for each 

pile size and activity are presented in 

Table 4. Source levels for vibratory 

installation and removal of piles of the 

same diameter are assumed to be the 

same. 

TABLE 4—SOUND SOURCE LEVELS FOR PILE DRIVING

Pile size and type Hammer type 

Source level 

(at 10m) Literature source 

SPLrms Peak SEL 

11.5-inch H-Pile ..................................... Impact ............ 183 200 170 Caltrans 2015 (12-in H-Pile). 

14-inch H-Pile ........................................ Impact ............ 187 208 177 Caltrans 2015 (14-in H-Pile). 

Vibratory ........ 150 160 150 Caltrans 2015 (12-in H-Pile). 

48-inch Pipe Pile ................................... Impact ............ 195 210 185 Caltrans 2015 (60-in CISS Pile). 

Sheet Piles (19.69-inch and 25-inch) .... Vibratory ........ 160 175 160 Caltrans 2015 (AZ Sheet Pile). 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 

where 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

Absent site-specific acoustical 

monitoring with differing measured 

transmission loss, a practical spreading 

value of 15 is used as the transmission 

loss coefficient in the above formula. 

Project and site-specific transmission 

loss data for the Prudhoe Bay portion of 

AGDC’s AK LNG project are not 

available; therefore, the default 

coefficient of 15 is used to determine 

the distances to the Level A and Level 

B harassment thresholds. However, as 

discussed in the Monitoring and 

Reporting section, AGDC will conduct 

SSV for pile driving. NMFS may adjust 

the shutdown zones and revise the 

Level A and Level B harassment zones, 

as appropriate, pending review and 

approval of the results of acoustic 

monitoring. 

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which may result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment 

take. However, these tools offer the best 

way to predict appropriate isopleths 

when more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as pile driving, NMFS User 

Spreadsheet predicts the distance at 

which, if a marine mammal remained at 

that distance the whole duration of the 

activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet, and the 

resulting isopleths are reported below. 

TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

11.5-inch H-pile 14-inch H-pile 14-inch H-pile 48-inch pipe pile 19.69-inch sheet 

piles 25-inch sheet piles 

Spreadsheet Tab Used ....................... E.1) Impact pile 

driving.

E.1) Impact pile 

driving.

A.1) Vibratory pile 

driving.

E.1) Impact pile 

driving.

A.1) Vibratory pile 

driving.

A.1) Vibratory pile 

driving. 

Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) .... 2 ........................... 2 ........................... 2.5 ........................ 2 ........................... 2.5 ........................ 2.5. 

Source Level ....................................... 170 dB SEL ......... 177 dB SEL ......... 150 SPLrms .......... 185 dB SEL ......... 160 SPLrms .......... 160 SPLrms. 

Number of piles within 24-h period a ... 26.09 b .................. 4 ........................... 8 ........................... 1.25 ...................... 15.24 b .................. 12. 

Duration to drive a single pile (minutes)............................... .............................. 15 ......................... .............................. 18.9 ...................... 24. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10682 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS— 

Continued 

11.5-inch H-pile 14-inch H-pile 14-inch H-pile 48-inch pipe pile 19.69-inch sheet 

piles 25-inch sheet piles 

Number of strikes per pile ................... 1,000 .................... 1,000 .................... .............................. 1,000 .................... ..............................

Propagation (xLogR) ........................... 15 ......................... 15 ......................... 15 ......................... 15 ......................... 15 ......................... 15. 

Distance from source level measurement (meters).10 ......................... 10 ......................... 10 ......................... 10 ......................... 10 ......................... 10. 

aThese estimates include contingencies for weather, equipment, work flow, and other factors that affect the number of piles per day, and are assumed to be a 

maximum anticipated per day. Given that AGDC plans to pile drive up to 24 hours per day, it is appropriate to assume that the number of piles installed within the 24- 

hour period may not be a whole number. bThese averages assume that AGDC will drive 11.5-inch H-piles and sheet piles at a rate of 25 feet per day. 

TABLE 6—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Activity Hammer type 

Level A harassment zone 

(m) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans Phocids (m) 

11.5-inch H-Pile ...................................................................... Impact ......... 1,194 43 639 341 

14-inch H-Pile ......................................................................... Impact ......... 1,002 36 536 631 

Vibratory ...... 2 <1 1 1,000 

48-inch Pipe Pile .................................................................... Impact ......... 1,575 56 843 2,154 

19.69-inch Sheet Piles ........................................................... Vibratory ...... 17 2 10 4,642 

25-inch Sheet Piles ................................................................ Vibratory ...... 17 2 10 4,642 

Level A harassment zones are 

typically smaller than Level B 

harassment zones. However, in rare 

cases such as the impact pile driving of 

the 11.5-inch and 14-inch H-piles in 

AGDC’s project, the calculated Level A 

harassment isopleth is greater than the 

calculated Level B harassment isopleth. 

Calculation of Level A harassment 

isopleths include a duration component, 

which in the case of impact pile driving, 

is estimated through the total number of 

daily strikes and the associated pulse 

duration. For a stationary sound source 

such as impact pile driving, we assume 

here that an animal is exposed to all of 

the strikes expected within a 24-hour 

period. Calculation of a Level B 

harassment zone does not include a 

duration component. Depending on the 

duration included in the calculation, the 

calculated Level A harassment isopleths 

can be larger than the calculated Level 

B harassment isopleth for the same 

activity. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Each fall and summer, NMFS and 

BOEM conduct an aerial survey in the 

Arctic, the ASAMM surveys (Clarke et 

al., 2012, 2013a, 2014, 2015, 2017a, 

2017b, 2018, 2019, 2020). The goal of 

these surveys is to document the 

distribution and relative abundance of 

bowhead, gray, right, fin and beluga 

whales and other marine mammals in 

areas of potential oil and natural gas 

exploration, development, and 

production activities in the Alaskan 

Beaufort and northeastern Chukchi 

Seas. Traditionally, only fall surveys 

were conducted but, in 2011, the first 

dedicated summer survey effort began 

in the ASAMM Beaufort Sea study area. 

AGDC used these ASAMM surveys as 

the data source to estimate seasonal 

densities of cetaceans (bowhead, gray 

and beluga whales) in the project area. 

The ASAMM surveys are conducted 

within blocks that overlay the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas oil and gas lease sale 

areas offshore of Alaska (Figure 16 in 

AGDC’s application), and provide 

sighting data for bowhead, gray, and 

beluga whales during summer and fall 

months. During the summer and fall, 

NMFS observed for marine mammals on 

effort for 13,484 km and 12,846 km, 

respectively, from 2011 through 2018, 

and an additional 1643 km during 

summer 2019 and 2055 km during fall 

2019. Data from those surveys are used 

for this analysis. We note that the 

Prudhoe Bay portion of the AK LNG 

project is in ASAMM survey Block 1a. 

The inshore boundary of Block 1 

terminates at the McClure Island group, 

and it was not until 2016 that on-effort 

surveys began inside the McClure Island 

group (Block 1a; including Prudhoe 

Bay) since bowhead whales, the focus of 

the surveys, are not likely to enter this 

area given its shallow depth. However, 

no bowhead whales and only one beluga 

whale have been observed in Block 1a 

(including Prudhoe Bay). Therefore, the 

density estimates provided here, 

calculated using data from block 1, are 

likely an overestimate because they rely 

on offshore surveys where marine 

mammals are more likely to be present. 

Bowhead Whale 

AGDC calculated density estimates for 

bowhead whale by dividing the average 

number of whales observed per km of 

transect effort from 2011 to 2018 in 

ASAMM Block 1 (whales/km in Table 7) 

by two times the effective strip width 

(ESW) to encompass both sides of the 

transect line (whales per km/(2 × ESW). 

The ESW for bowhead whales from the 

Aero Commander aircraft is 1.15 km 

(0.71 mi) (Ferguson and Clarke 2013). 

Therefore, the summer density estimate 

is 0.005 bowhead whales/km2, and the 

fall density estimate is 0.017 bowhead 

whales/km2. The resulting densities are 

expected to be overestimates for the AK 

LNG analysis because the data is based 

on sighting effort outside of the barrier 

islands, and bowhead whales rarely 

occur within the barrier islands. 

However, AGDC conservatively used the 

higher fall density to estimate potential 

Level B harassment takes, and NMFS 

concurs. (Note that inclusion of the 

2019 ASAMM surveys reduces the fall 

bowhead density to 0.016 bowhead 

whales/km2. However, NMFS has 

conservatively used the higher density 

included in the proposed IHA to 

calculate Level B harassment take of 

bowhead whale, as described in the 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

section, below.) 

As noted in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section of the proposed IHA 

(85 FR 43382; July 16, 2020), we do not 

expect bowhead whales to be present 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10683 

during AGDC’s winter/spring 

contingency pile driving period. 

TABLE 7—BOWHEAD WHALE SIGHTING DATA FROM 2011 THROUGH 2019 AND RESULTING DENSITIES

Year 

Summer Fall 

Number 

of whales 

sighted 

Transect 

effort 

(km) 

Whales/km Whales/km 2 a

Number 

of whales 

sighted 

Transect 

effort 

(km) 

Whales/km Whales/km 2 a

2011 ......................... 1 346 0.003 0.001 24 1,130 0.021 0.009 

2012 ......................... 5 1,493 0.003 0.001 17 1,696 0.010 0.004 

2013 ......................... 21 1,582 0.013 0.006 21 1,121 0.019 0.008 

2014 ......................... 17 1,393 0.012 0.005 79 1,538 0.051 0.022 

2015 ......................... 15 1,262 0.012 0.005 17 1,663 0.010 0.004 

2016 ......................... 97 1,914 0.051 0.022 23 2,360 0.010 0.004 

2017 ......................... 8 3,003 0.003 0.001 255 1,803 0.141 0.061 

2018 ......................... 2 2,491 0.001 0.0004 69 1,535 0.045 0.020 

2019 c ....................... 6 1,643 0.004 0.002 45 2,055 0.022 0.010 

Total .................. 166 13,484 b 0.012 b 0.005 505 12,846 b 0.039 b 0.017 

a Calculated using an effective strip width of 1.15 km. 

bValue represents average, not total, across all years. 

c Note that inclusion of the new 2019 data results in a lower fall bowhead whale density (0.016). NMFS has conservatively used the higher fall 

density included in the proposed IHA (85 FR 43382; July 16, 2020) to calculate Level B harassment take of bowhead whale. Therefore, the 2019 

data is not included in calculations in the ‘‘TOTAL’’ row. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whale sightings in the Beaufort 

Sea have increased in recent years; 

however, encounters are still infrequent. 

AGDC calculated density estimates for 

gray whale by dividing the average 

number of whales observed per km of 

transect effort (whales/km in Table 8) by 

two times the ESW to encompass both 

sides of the transect line (whales per 

km/(2 × ESW). The ESW for gray whales 

from the Aero Commander aircraft is 

1.20 km (0.75 mi) (Ferguson and Clarke 

2013). Therefore, the summer and fall 

density estimates are both 0.00003 gray 

whales/km2. The resulting densities are 

expected to be overestimates for the AK 

LNG analysis because the data is based 

on sighting effort outside of the barrier 

islands, and gray whales rarely occur 

within the barrier islands as evidenced 

by Block 1a ASAMM surveys. 

Similar to bowhead whale described 

above, gray whale densities were 

calculated using ASAMM survey data 

from 2011 to 2018. Inclusion of the 2019 

ASAMM surveys reduces the summer 

gray whale density to 0.000028 gray 

whales/km2. However, NMFS has 

conservatively used the slightly higher 

density included in the proposed IHA to 

calculate Level B harassment take of 

gray whale, as described in the Take 

Calculation and Estimation section, 

below. 

As noted in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section of the proposed IHA 

(85 FR 43382; July 16, 2020), we do not 

expect gray whales to be present during 

AGDC’s winter/spring contingency pile 

driving period. 

TABLE 8—GRAY WHALE SIGHTING DATA FROM 2011 THROUGH 2019 AND RESULTING DENSITIES

Year 

Summer Fall 

Number 

of whales 

sighted 

Transect 

effort 

(km) 

Whales/km Whales/km 2 a

Number 

of whales 

sighted 

Transect 

effort 

(km) 

Whales/km Whales/km 2 a

2011 ......................... 0 346 0 0 0 1,130 0 0 

2012 ......................... 0 1,493 0 0 0 1,696 0 0 

2013 ......................... 0 1,582 0 0 0 1,121 0 0 

2014 ......................... 0 1,393 0 0 1 1,538 0.0007 0.0003 

2015 ......................... 0 1,262 0 0 0 1,663 0 0 

2016 ......................... 1 1,914 0.003 0.001 0 2,360 0 0 

2017 ......................... 0 3,003 0 0 0 1,803 0 0 

2018 ......................... 0 2,491 0 0 0 1,535 0 0 

2019 ......................... 0 1,643 0 0 0 2,055 0 0 

Total .................. 1 13,484 b 0.00007 b 0.00003 1 12,846 b 0.00008 b 0.00003 

a Calculated using an effective strip width of 1.20 km. 

bValue represents average, not total, across all years. 

c Note that inclusion of the new 2019 data results in a lower fall bowhead whale density (0.016). NMFS has conservatively used the higher fall 

density included in the proposed IHA to calculate Level B harassment take of bowhead whale. Therefore, the 2019 data is not included in calculations in the ‘‘TOTAL’’ row. 

Beluga Whale 

AGDC calculated beluga densities for 

survey block 1 (the area offshore from 

the McClure Island group) using 

ASAMM data collected from 2014– 

2018. Beluga sighting data was included 

in surveys from 2011 to 2013; however, 

this data is only summarized by depth 

zone, rather than by survey block. 

Therefore, the National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory (Megan Ferguson, pers. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10684 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

comm., November 18, 2019), advised 

NMFS and AGDC to calculate beluga 

whale density using the 2014–2018 

ASAMM data, as it is more recent and 

incorporates more years. Density 

estimates for beluga whale were 

calculated by dividing the average 

number of whales observed per km of 

transect effort (whales/km in Table 9) by 

two times the effective strip width to 

encompass both sides of the transect 

line (whales per km/(2 × ESW). The 

ESW for beluga whales from the Aero 

Commander aircraft is 0.614 km (0.38 

mi) (Ferguson and Clarke 2013). Using 

the 2014 to 2018 data, the resulting 

summer density estimate included in 

the proposed IHA was 0.005 beluga 

whales/km2, and the fall density 

estimate included in the proposed IHA 

was 0.001 beluga whales/km2. AGDC 

conservatively used the higher summer 

density to estimate potential Level B 

harassment takes, and NMFS concurred 

for the proposed IHA (85 FR 43382; July 

16, 2020). 

Inclusion of the recently-available 

2019 ASAMM survey results for beluga 

whale in block 1 increased the summer 

beluga whale density to 0.009 whales/ 

km2 since publication of the proposed 

IHA. Therefore, as described further in 

the Take Calculation and Estimation 

section, below, NMFS used the updated 

summer density to calculate beluga 

whale Level A and Level B harassment 

take. 

The resulting densities are expected 

to be overestimates for the AK LNG 

analysis 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. 

As noted in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section of the proposed IHA 

(85 FR 43382; July 16, 2020), we do not 

expect beluga whales to be present 

during AGDC’s winter/spring 

contingency pile driving period. 

TABLE 9—BELUGA WHALE SIGHTING DATA FROM 2011 THROUGH 2019 AND RESULTING DENSITIES

Year 

Summer Fall 

Number 

of whales 

sighted 

Transect 

effort 

(km) 

Whales/km Whales/km 2 a

Number 

of whales 

sighted 

Transect 

effort 

(km) 

Whales/km Whales/km 2 a

2014 ......................... 13 1,393 0.009 0.008 9 1,538 0.006 0.005 

2015 ......................... 37 1,262 0.029 0.024 3 1,663 0.002 0.001 

2016 ......................... 0 1,914 0 0 1 2,360 0.0004 0.0003 

2017 ......................... 4 3,003 0.001 0.001 0 1,803 0 0 

2018 ......................... 6 2,491 0.002 0.002 0 1,535 0 0 

2019 c ....................... 63 1,643 0.038 0.031 1 2,055 0.0005 0.0004 

Total .................. 60 11,706 b 0.012 b 0.009 13 10,954 b 0.001 b 0.001 

a Calculated using an effective strip width of 0.614 km. 

bValue represents average, not total, across all years. 

cValues included in the updated ‘‘TOTAL’’ row. 

Ringed Seal 

Ringed seals are the most abundant 

species in the project area. They haul 

out on the ice to molt between late May 

and early June, and spring aerial surveys 

provide the most comprehensive 

density estimates available. Industry 

monitoring programs for the 

construction of the Northstar production 

facility conducted spring aerial surveys 

in the area surrounding West Dock from 

1997 to 2002 (Frost et al., 2002; Moulten 

et al., 2002b; Moulton et al., 2005; 

Richardson and Williams, 2003). Spring 

surveys are expected to provide the best 

ringed seal density information, as the 

greatest percentage of seals have 

abandoned their lairs and are hauled out 

on the ice (Kelly et al., 2010). Densities 

were consistently very low in areas 

where the water depth was less than 10 

ft. (3 m), and only sightings observed in 

water depths greater than 10 ft. (3 m) 

have been included in the density 

calculations (Moulton et al., 2002a, 

Moulton et al., 2002b, Richardson and 

Williams, 2003). The average observed 

spring ringed seal density from this 

monitoring effort was 0.548 seals/km2

(Table 10). These densities are not 

corrected for unobserved animals, and 

therefore may result in an 

underestimated density. However, 

NMFS and AGDC do not expect this to 

be a concern, given that the density 

calculations conservatively only 

included sightings observed in water 

depths greater than 10 ft (3 m) (Moulton 

et al., 2002a, Moulton et al., 2002b, 

Richardson and Williams, 2003), while 

the water surrounding the project site is 

shallow (less than 10 ft at the project 

site), and therefore densities are likely 

to be lower. 

TABLE 10—RINGED SEAL DENSITIES ESTIMATED FROM SPRING AERIAL SURVEYS CONDUCTED FROM 1997 TO 2002 

Year Density 

(seals/km2) 

1997 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.43 

1998 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.39 

1999 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.63 

2000 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.47 

2001 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.54 

2002 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.83 

Average .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.548 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10685 

In order to generate a summer density, 

as AGDC expects that the majority of 

their work will occur during the 

summer, we first began with the spring 

density. Summer densities in the project 

area are expected to significantly 

decrease as ringed seals range 

considerable distances during the open 

water season. Summer density was 

estimated to be 50 percent of the spring 

density (0.548 seals/km2), resulting in a 

summer density estimate of 0.274 ringed 

seals/km2. Like summer density 

estimates, fall density data are limited. 

Ringed seals remain in the water 

through the fall and into the winter. 

Given the lack of data, fall density is 

assumed the same as the summer 

density of 0.274 ringed seals/km2. 

During the winter months, ringed 

seals create subnivean lairs and 

maintain breathing holes in the landfast 

ice. Tagging data suggest that ringed 

seals utilize multiple lairs and Kelly et 

al. (1986) determined that, on average, 

one seal used 2.85 lairs, although the 

authors suggested that this is likely an 

underestimate. Density estimates for the 

number of ringed seal ice structures 

have been calculated (Frost and Burns 

1989; Kelly et al. 1986; Williams et al. 

2001), and the average density of ice 

structures from these reports is 1.58/ 

km2. 

To estimate ringed seal density in the 

winter, the average ice structure density 

(1.58/km2) was divided by the average 

number of structures used by the seals 

(2.85 structures). The estimated density 

is 0.509 ringed seals/km2 in the winter; 

however, this is likely an overestimate 

as the average number of ice structures 

utilized is thought to be an 

underestimate (Kelly et al., 1986). 

While more recent ASAMM surveys 

have been conducted in the project area 

(2016–2019), these surveys did not 

identify observed pinnipeds to species, 

and therefore were not used to calculate 

take of pinnipeds. 

TABLE 11—RINGED SEAL ICE STRUCTURE DENSITY IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT AREA

Year 

Ice structure 

density 

(structures 

per km2) 

Source 

1982 ............................................................................................ 3.6 Frost and Burns 1989. 

1983 ............................................................................................ 0.81 Kelly et al., 1986. 

1999 ............................................................................................ 0.71 Williams et al., 2001. 

2000 ............................................................................................ 1.2 Williams et al., 2001. 

Average Density .......................................................................... 1.58. 

Given that AGDC will only pile drive 

during the winter if they are unable to 

complete the work during the summer 

and fall open water season, AGDC 

estimated ringed seal takes using 

summer densities, rather than winter. 

NMFS concurs with this approach. 

Spotted Seal 

The spotted seal occurs in the 

Beaufort Sea in small numbers during 

the summer open water period. At the 

onset of freeze-up in the fall, spotted 

seals return to the Chukchi and then 

Bering Sea to spend the winter and 

spring. As such, we do not expect 

spotted seals to occur in the project area 

during AGDC’s winter/spring 

contingency period. 

Only a few of the studies referenced 

in calculating the ringed seal densities 

also include data for spotted seals. 

Given the limited spotted seal data, 

NMFS expects that relying on this data 

may result in an underestimate, and that 

it is more conservative to calculate the 

spotted seal density as a proportion of 

the ringed seal density. Therefore, 

summer spotted seal density was 

estimated as a proportion of the ringed 

seal summer density based on the 

percentage of pinniped sightings 

observed during monitoring projects in 

the region (Harris et al., 2001; Aerts et 

al., 2008; Hauser et al., 2008; HDR 

2012). Spotted seals comprised 20 

percent of the pinniped sightings during 

these monitoring efforts. Therefore, 

summer spotted seal density was 

calculated as 20 percent of the ringed 

seal density of 0.274 seals/km2. This 

results in an estimated spotted seal 

summer density of 0.055 seals/km2. 

Bearded Seal 

The majority of bearded seals spend 

the winter and spring in the Chukchi 

and Bering seas; however, some remain 

in the Beaufort Sea year-round. A 

reliable population estimate for the 

bearded seal stock is not available, and 

occurrence in the Beaufort Sea is less 

known than that in the Bering Sea. 

Spring aerial surveys conducted as part 

of industry monitoring for the Northstar 

production facility provide limited 

sighting numbers from 1999–2002 

(Moulton et al., 2000, Moulton et al., 

2001, Moulton et al., 2002a, Moulton et 

al., 2003). During the 4 years of survey, 

an average of 11.75 bearded seals were 

observed during 3,997.5 km2 of effort. 

Using this data, winter and spring 

density are estimated to be 0.003 

bearded seals/km2. 

Bearded seals occur in the Beaufort 

Sea more frequently during the open 

water season, rather than other parts of 

the year. Only a few of the studies 

referenced in calculating the ringed seal 

densities also include data for bearded 

seals. Given the limited bearded seal 

data, NMFS expects that relying on this 

data may result in an underestimate, 

and that it is more conservative to 

calculate the bearded seal density as a 

proportion of the ringed seal density. 

Therefore, summer density was 

estimated as a proportion of the ringed 

seal summer density based on the 

percentage of pinniped sightings 

observed during monitoring projects in 

the region (Harris et al., 2001; Aerts et 

al., 2008; Hauser et al., 2008; HDR 

2012). Bearded seals comprised 17 

percent of the pinniped sightings during 

these monitoring efforts. Therefore, 

summer bearded seal density was 

calculated as 17 percent of the ringed 

seal density of 0.274 seals/km2. This 

results in an estimated bearded seal 

summer density of 0.047 seals/km2. The 

same estimate is assumed for bearded 

seal fall density. 

As noted in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section and in Table 12, 

bearded seals could potentially occur in 

the project area during AGDC’s winter/ 

spring contingency period. However, we 

would expect very few, if any, bearded 

seals to be present during this time. In 

consideration of this species presence 

information, and AGDC’s plan to 

conduct most construction during the 

open-water season, NMFS used the 

summer density in the take calculation 

described below. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10686 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 12—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES IN THE GEOGRAPHIC REGION BY SEASON

Species Winter 

(Nov–Mar) 

Spring 

(Apr–Jun) a

Summer 

(Jul–Aug) 

Fall 

(Sept–Oct) 

Bowhead Whale ............................................................................................... 0 0 0.005 0.017 

Gray Whale ...................................................................................................... 0 0 0.00003 0.00003 

Beluga Whaleb ................................................................................................. 0 0 0.009 0.001 

Ringed Seal ..................................................................................................... 0.507 0.548 0.274 0.274 

Spotted Seal .................................................................................................... 0 0 0.055 0 

Bearded Seal ................................................................................................... 0.003 0.003 0.047 0.047 

aAGDC’s pile driving contingency period extends from late February to April 2024, however, very little if any pile driving is likely to occur in 

April. bAs noted above, the beluga whale densities were updated to include 2019 ASAMM survey data. (Clarke et al., 2020). 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

In this section, we describe how the 

information provided above is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate. 

To estimate Level A and Level B 

harassment takes, AGDC first multiplied 

the area (km2) estimated to be 

ensonified above the Level A or Level B 

harassment thresholds for each species, 

respectively, for pile driving (and 

removal) of each pile size and hammer 

type by the duration (days) of that 

activity in that season by the seasonal 

density for each species (number of 

animals/km2). NMFS generally concurs 

with, and has adopted this method, with 

the exception of the estimated duration 

of the activity, as described below. 

AGDC expects that construction will 

likely be completed during the openwater construction season. AGDC 

calculated that the construction will 

require approximately 164 days of inwater work; however, this estimate does 

not take into account that different pile 

types would be installed on the same 

day, therefore reducing the total number 

of pile driving days. Therefore, NMFS 

expects that the take calculation using 

AGDC’s method described above 

overestimates take. Taking into 

consideration the number of calendar 

days, construction occurring 6 days per 

week, and no work occurring on days 

during the whaling season, there are 123 

days in the months of July through 

October on which the work is expected 

to occur (75 percent of the 164 days 

used to inform the take estimate in 

AGDC’s application). As such, NMFS is 

authorizing 75 percent of the take 

estimate calculated by AGDC for each 

species (except for Level A harassment 

take of bowhead whales and beluga 

whales, and Level B harassment of gray 

whales as noted below). 

NMFS recognizes that AGDC may 

work for a short time outside of this 

period in their February to April 

contingency period; however, we expect 

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. Additionally, we recognize that 

ringed seals may be present in ice lairs 

during the contingency period. 

However, AGDC must initiate pile 

driving prior to March 1, as described in 

the Mitigation Measures section. 

Initiating pile driving before March 1 is 

expected to discourage seals from 

establishing birthing lairs near pile 

driving. As such, we expect that this 

measure will eliminate the potential for 

physical injury to ringed seals during 

this period. Therefore, NMFS expects 

that the take estimate described herein 

is reasonable even if AGDC must pile 

drive during their contingency period. 

NMFS calculated take using summer 

densities for all species except for 

bowhead whale. For bowhead whales, 

NMFS conservatively calculated take 

using the fall density. 

For bowhead whale, including the 

2019 ASAMM surveys decreases the fall 

bowhead density to 0.016 bowhead 

whales/km2. However, NMFS has 

conservatively used the higher density 

included in the proposed IHA to 

calculate Level B harassment take of 

bowhead whale. Using the lower 

density results in an estimate of 103 

Level B harassment takes of bowhead, 

which NMFS considers to be a 

negligible difference, though less 

conservative. 

For gray whale, including the 2019 

ASAMM survey data decreases the 

summer density to 0.000028 gray 

whales/km2. Using this lower density 

results in a calculated take estimate of 

0.18 takes by Level B harassment of gray 

whale, but in consideration of group 

size, the take estimate remains 2 takes 

by Level B harassment, as included in 

the proposed IHA. 

For beluga whale, including the 2019 

ASAMM survey data increases the 

summer density to 0.0009 beluga 

whales/km2, which significantly 

increases the estimated Level A and 

Level B harassment takes. Therefore, 

NMFS recalculated the Level A and 

Level B harassment take estimates using 

this new density. The updated estimates 

are included in Table 14 and Table 15. 

As noted in Table 15, in the proposed 

IHA (85 FR 43382; July 16, 2020), Level 

A harassment takes for beluga whale 

and phocids were erroneously 

calculated using the LF cetacean Level 

A harassment zone sizes. The 

calculations in Table 15 and in the final 

IHA reflect the corrected estimated 

Level A harassment take for phocids 

and beluga whale, calculated using the 

correct Level A harassment zone sizes. 

The Final IHA does not authorize Level 

A harassment take of beluga whale (nor 

was it included in the proposed IHA) 

despite the change to the calculation, 

given the small size of the Level A 

harassment zones, the low likelihood 

that a beluga will occur in this area, the 

lack of modeled Level A harassment 

takes, and the required mitigation, as 

described below. 

TABLE 13—AREA OF LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES

Area of level A harassment zone 

(km2) 

Area of level B 

harassment 

zone 

(km2 LF cetaceans MF cetaceans Phocids ) 

11.5-in H-pile (impact) ..................................................................................... 4.48 0.01 1.28 0.37

14-in H-pile (impact) ........................................................................................ 3.15 0.00 0.90 1.25 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10687 

TABLE 13—AREA OF LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES—Continued 

Area of level A harassment zone 

(km2) 

Area of level B 

harassment 

zone 

(km2 LF cetaceans MF cetaceans Phocids ) 

14-in H-pile (vibratory) ..................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.14 

48-in pipe pile (impact) .................................................................................... 7.80 0.01 2.23 14.58 

19.69-in sheet pile (vibratory) .......................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.68 

25-in sheet pile (vibratory) ............................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.68

TABLE 14—ESTIMATED LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKES BY SPECIES, PILE SIZE AND TYPE, AND INSTALLATION/REMOVAL

METHOD

Activity 

Estimated 

duration 

(days) 

Calculated level B harassment takes 

Bowhead whale Gray whale Beluga whale b Ringed seal Spotted seal Bearded seal 

DH4 

Sheet Pile ....................... 36 41.65 0.08 20.85 668.04 133.61 113.57 

Anchor Pile (11.5-inch Hpile) ............................. 9 0.06 0 0.03 0.90 0.18 0.15 

Mooring Dolphins (48- 

inch Pipe Pile) ............ 10 2.49 0 1.25 39.98 8.00 6.80 

Spud Piles (14-inch Hpile) ............................. 12 0.64 0 0.32 10.34 2.07 1.76 

South Bridge Abutment 

Dock Face (Sheet Pile) .. 23 26.61 0.05 13.32 426.80 85.36 72.56 

Tailwall (Sheet Pile) ....... 23 26.61 0.05 13.32 426.80 85.36 72.56 

Anchor Pile (14-inch Hpile) ............................. 1 0.02 0 0.01 0.34 0.07 0.06 

North Bridge Abutment 

Dock Face (Sheet Pile) .. 24 27.76 0.05 13.90 445.36 89.07 75.71 

Tailwall (Sheet Pile) ....... 17 19.67 0.04 9.85 315.46 63.09 53.63 

Anchor Pile (14-inch Hpile) ............................. 1 0.02 0 0.01 0.34 0.07 0.06 

Barge Bridge 

Mooring Dolphins (48- 

inch Pipe Piles) .......... 4 1.00 0 0.50 15.99 3.20 2.72 

Spud Piles (14-inch Hpiles) ........................... 4 0.21 0 0.11 3.45 0.69 0.59 

Total ........................ 164 146.74 0.27 73.46 2353.8 470.76 400.15 

Level B Harassment 

Take Authorized (75% 

of Total) ...................... 123 110 a 2 55 1,765 353 300 

a 75 percent of the calculated total is 0.2 takes, however, to account for group size (Clarke et al., 2017), NMFS is authorizing two Level B harassment takes of gray whale. b Includes updated density data from 2019 ASAMM surveys (Clarke et al., 2020). 

TABLE 15—CALCULATED LEVEL A HARASSMENT TAKES BY SPECIES, PILE SIZE AND TYPE, AND INSTALLATION/REMOVAL

METHOD

Activity 

Estimated 

duration 

(days) 

Calculated level A harassment takes 

Bowhead whale Gray whale Beluga whale c d Ringed seal c Spotted seal c Bearded seal c

DH4 

Sheet Pile ..................... 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Anchor Pile (11.5-inch 

H-pile) ....................... 9 0.69 0 0 3.16 0.63 0.54 

Mooring Dolphins (48- 

inch Pipe Pile) .......... 10 1.33 0 0 6.11 1.23 1.05 

Spud Piles (14-inch Hpile) ........................... 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 

South Bridge Abutment 

Dock Face (Sheet Pile) 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tailwall (Sheet Pile) ..... 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Anchor Pile (14-inch Hpile) ........................... 1 0.05 0 0 0.25 0.05 0.04 

North Bridge Abutment 

Dock Face (Sheet Pile) 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tailwall (Sheet Pile) ..... 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10688 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 15—CALCULATED LEVEL A HARASSMENT TAKES BY SPECIES, PILE SIZE AND TYPE, AND INSTALLATION/REMOVAL

METHOD—Continued 

Activity 

Estimated 

duration 

(days) 

Calculated level A harassment takes 

Bowhead whale Gray whale Beluga whale c d Ringed seal c Spotted seal c Bearded seal c

Anchor Pile (14-inch Hpile) ........................... 1 a 0.05 0 0 0.2466 0.0495 0.0423 

Barge Bridge 

Mooring Dolphins (48- 

inch Pipe Piles) ........ 4 0.53 0 0 2.44 0.49 0.42 

Spud Piles (14-inch Hpiles) ......................... 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total ...................... 164 2.65 0 0 12.20 2.45 2.09 

Level A Harassment 

Take Authorized 

(75% of Total) ........... 123 b 0 0 0 9 2 2 

a Note that the notice of proposed IHA mistakenly stated 0.5, rather than 0.05. However, the ‘‘Total’’ cell was calculated correctly. b 75 percent of the calculated total is 1.99 takes, however, we do not expect bowheads to occur within the Level A harassment zone, and we 

do not propose to authorize Level A harassment take of bowhead whale. c In the proposed IHA, Level A harassment takes for beluga whale and phocids were erroneously calculated using the LF cetacean Level A 

harassment zone sizes. The calculations in this table and in the final IHA reflect the corrected estimated Level A harassment take, calculated 

using the Level A harassment zone for belugas and phocids, respectively. dBeluga whale take estimates were updated to reflect inclusion of the 2019 ASAMM data in the density calculation. (However, the ‘‘Level A 

harassment Take Authorized’’ did not change.) 

We do not expect bowhead whales to 

occur within the Level A harassment 

zones due to the shallow waters 

(approximately 19 ft in depth at the 

isopleth), lack of historic sightings, and 

required mitigation. As previously 

noted, waters less than 15 ft (4.5 m) 

deep are considered too shallow to 

support these whales, and in three 

decades of aerial surveys by BOEM 

(ASAMM), no bowhead whale has been 

recorded in waters less than 16.4 ft (5 

m) deep (Clarke and Ferguson 2010). 

Further, no bowhead whales have been 

observed during ASAMM surveys in 

Block 1a (which encompasses the Level 

A harassment zone) since Block 1a 

surveys in began in 2016. Additionally, 

shutdown requirements within 

designated shutdown zones for LF 

cetaceans (which include bowhead 

whales) are expected to prevent take by 

Level A harassment given the large size 

and visibility of bowhead whales. 

Additionally, Level A harassment zones 

are calculated with an associated 

duration component based on the 

amount of pile driving expected to 

occur within one day. Therefore, a 

marine mammal is not taken by Level A 

harassment instantaneously when it 

enters the Level A harassment zone, and 

given the shallow depths, even if a 

bowhead did enter the Level A 

harassment zone, we would not expect 

it to remain within the zone for a long 

enough period to incur PTS. Therefore, 

we do not expect Level A harassment of 

bowhead whales to occur, and are not 

authorizing Level A harassment take of 

bowheads. 

The likelihood of gray whales 

occurring in the Level A harassment 

zone is extremely low, as evidenced by 

the very low densities included in the 

Marine Mammal Occurrence section 

and the lack of modeled takes in Table 

15. Further, shutdown requirements 

within designated shutdown zones for 

LF cetaceans (which include gray 

whales) are expected to prevent take by 

Level A harassment given the large size 

and visibility of gray whales, and the 

duration component associated with the 

Level A harassment zones. Even if a 

gray whale did enter the Level A 

harassment zone, we would not expect 

it to remain within the zone for a long 

enough period to incur PTS, given the 

mitigation and visibility. Therefore, we 

do not expect Level A harassment of 

gray whales to occur, and are not 

authorizing Level A harassment take of 

gray whale. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for mid-frequency cetaceans (including 

the beluga whale) extends 56 m from the 

source during impact driving of the 48- 

inch pipe piles (Table 6). Considering 

the small size of the Level A harassment 

zones, and the low likelihood that a 

beluga will occur in this area, Level A 

harassment take is unlikely to occur. 

Further, no Level A harassment takes 

are modeled given the corrected zone 

size used in the calculation in this final 

IHA. Additionally, AGDC is planning to 

implement a 50 m shutdown zone 

during this activity, which includes the 

<1 m peak PTS isopleth. We expect 

shutdown zones will eliminate the 

potential for Level A harassment take of 

beluga whale. Therefore, we are not 

authorizing takes of beluga whale by 

Level A harassment. 

TABLE 16—AUTHORIZED INCIDENTAL TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK

Common name Stock 

Level A 

harassment 

take e

Level B 

harassment 

take e

Total 

instances of 

take 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

Bowhead Whale .................. Western Arctic .................... 0 110 110 16,820 0.65 

Gray Whale ......................... Eastern North Pacific ......... 0 2 2 26,960 0.007 

Beluga Whale a ................... Beaufort Sea ...................... 0 55 55 39,258 0.14 

Chukchi Sea ....................... ........................ ........................ ........................ c 13,305 0.4 

Ringed Seal ........................ Arctic d ................................ 9 b 1,765 1,774 N/A N/A 

Spotted Seal ....................... Bering d ............................... 2 b 353 355 461,625 0.08 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10689 

TABLE 16—AUTHORIZED INCIDENTAL TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK—Continued 

Common name Stock 

Level A 

harassment 

take e

Level B 

harassment 

take e

Total 

instances of 

take 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

Bearded Seal ...................... Beringia d ............................ 2 b 300 302 N/A N/A 

aAs noted in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section, beluga whales in the project area are likely to be 

from the Beaufort Sea stock. However, we have conservatively attributed all takes to each stock in our analysis. b Updated to reflect the correct Level A harassment zone size for phocids. 

c Updated to reflect the 2020 Draft SAR estimate. The former stock abundance estimate was 20,752. 

dThese stock names were updated in the 2020 Draft SARs. The stock names were all formerly ‘‘Alaska.’’ 

eThe estimated number of takes by Level A harassment and Level B harassment does not necessarily equate to the number of individual animals NMFS expects will be harassed (which may be lower), but rather to the instances of take (i.e., exposures above the Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment threshold) that are anticipated to occur. These instances may represent either brief exposures (minutes) or, in some 

cases, longer durations of exposure within a day. Some individuals may experience multiple instances of take (i.e., on multiple days) over the 

course of the year, which means that the number of individuals taken is smaller than the total estimated takes. Repeat takes of the same individual are more likely for pinnipeds given the likelihood of an individual to remain in the project area for a longer period of time in comparison to 

a cetacean, and the greater anticipated instances of pinniped takes. 

Effects of Specified Activities on 

Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals 

The availability of the affected marine 

mammal stocks or species for 

subsistence uses may be impacted by 

this activity. The subsistence uses that 

may be affected and the potential 

impacts of the activity on those uses are 

described below. Measures included in 

this IHA to reduce the impacts of the 

activity on subsistence uses are 

described in the Mitigation Measures 

section. Last, the information from this 

section and the Mitigation Measures 

section is analyzed to determine 

whether the necessary findings may be 

made in the Unmitigable Adverse 

Impact Analysis and Determination 

section. 

The communities of Nuiqsut, 

Utqiag ̇vik and Kaktovik engage in 

subsistence harvests off the North Slope 

of Alaska. Alaska Native communities 

have harvested bowhead whales for 

subsistence and cultural purposes with 

oversight and quotas regulated by the 

International Whaling Commission 

(IWC). The NSB Department of Wildlife 

Management has been conducting 

bowhead whale subsistence harvest 

research since the early 1980’s to collect 

the data needed by the IWC to set 

harvest quotas. Bowhead whale harvest 

(percent of total marine mammal 

harvest), harvest weight, and percent of 

households using bowhead whale are 

presented in Table 25 of AGDC’s 

application. 

Most of the Beaufort Sea population 

of beluga whales migrate from the 

Bering Sea into the Beaufort Sea in 

April or May. The spring migration 

routes through ice leads are similar to 

those of the bowhead whale. Fall 

migration through the western Beaufort 

Sea occurs in September or October. 

Surveys of the fall distribution strongly 

indicate that most belugas migrate 

offshore along the pack ice front beyond 

the reach of subsistence harvesters. 

Beluga whales are harvested 

opportunistically during the bowhead 

harvest and throughout ice-free months. 

No beluga whale harvests were reported 

in 2006 survey interviews conducted by 

Stephen R. Braund & Associates (SRBA) 

in any community (SRBA 2010). Beluga 

harvests were also not reported in 

Nuiqsut and Kaktovik, although 

households did report using beluga 

whale, likely through sharing from other 

communities (Brown et al., 2016). We 

do not expect the planned activities at 

the AK LNG project site to affect beluga 

whale subsistence harvests, as none are 

expected. 

Gray whale harvests were not 

reported by any of the communities 

surveyed by Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game (ADF&G) in any of the survey 

years, and therefore are not included as 

an important subsistence species and 

are not further discussed. 

The community of Utqiag ̇vik’s 

subsistence activities occur outside of 

the area impacted by activities 

considered in this authorization. As 

described below, we do not expect 

impacts to Utqiag ̇vik’s subsistence 

activities, and therefore they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. 

Impacts to marine mammals from the 

planned construction would mostly 

include limited, temporary behavioral 

disturbances of seals, however, some 

slight PTS within the lower frequencies 

associated with pile driving is possible. 

Additionally, a small number of takes of 

bowhead whales, by Level B harassment 

only, are predicted to occur in the 

vicinity of AGDC’s activity. Even if 

some subset of taken individuals 

deflected farther offshore near the 

project site, it is reasonable to predict 

that most individuals would likely 

resume a more typical migration path by 

the time they reach the Utqiag ̇vik 

hunting area, and therefore, significant 

impacts to the Utqiag ̇vik hunt would be 

unlikely. Please refer to AGDC’s 

application for additional information. 

The planned activities and associated 

harassment of marine mammals are not 

expected to impact marine mammals in 

numbers or locations sufficient to 

render them unavailable for Utqiag ̇vik 

subsistence harvest given the shortterm, temporary, and localized nature of 

construction activities, and the planned 

mitigation measures. Additionally, no 

serious injury or mortality of marine 

mammals is expected or authorized, and 

the activities are not expected to have 

any impacts on reproductive or survival 

rates of any marine mammal species. 

Altogether, the authorized take by 

harassment will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of any species or stock for 

subsistence uses. 

Kaktovik 

Kaktovik is the easternmost village in 

the NSB. Kaktovik is located on the 

north shore of Barter Island, situated 

between the Okpilak and Jago rivers on 

the Beaufort Sea coast. Kaktovik’s 

subsistence-harvest areas are to the east 

of the project area and target marine 

mammal species migrating eastward 

during spring and summer occur 

seaward of the project area and 

westward in the fall. 

Kaktovik bowhead whale hunters 

reported traveling between Camden Bay 

to the west and Nuvagapak Lagoon to 

the east (SRBA 2010). This range does 

not include the project area impacted by 

the activities analyzed for this IHA. The 

small number of takes of bowhead 

whales, by Level B harassment only, 

predicted to occur in the vicinity of 

AGDC’s activity are not expected to 

have any impacts on the fitness of any 

bowhead whales. Further, we do not 

expect construction activities to deflect 

the bowhead whale migration offshore 

in the Kaktovik hunting area, given the 

distance from the western extent of the 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10690 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

hunting area (Camden Bay) to the 

predicted Level B harassment isopleths. 

Even if some subset of taken individuals 

deflected farther offshore near the 

project site, it is reasonable to predict 

that most individuals would likely 

resume a more typical migration path by 

the time they reach the Kaktovik 

hunting area during the eastbound 

migration, and during the westbound 

migration, a bowhead exposed to 

construction noise would have already 

passed the hunting area prior to 

exposure. Significant impacts to the 

Kaktovik hunt would be unlikely, and 

Kaktovik bowhead whale hunting is not 

discussed further. Please refer to 

AGDC’s application for additional 

information. 

Ringed, spotted and bearded seals are 

harvested by the community of 

Kaktovik. Residents hunt seals in rivers 

during ice-free months, primarily JulyAugust. Ringed seals are an important 

subsistence resource for Native 

Alaskans living in communities along 

the Beaufort Sea coast. Kaktovik hunters 

travel by boat to look for ringed seals on 

floating ice (often while also hunting for 

bearded seal) or sometimes along the ice 

edge by snow machine before break-up, 

during the spring (SRBA 2010). In 2006, 

7 people (18 percent of survey 

respondents) indicated that they had 

recently hunted for ringed seals in 

Kaktovik (SRBA 2010). Residents 

reported looking for ringed seal, usually 

while also searching for bearded seal, 

offshore between Prudhoe Bay to the 

west and Demarcation Bay to the east 

(SRBA 2010). Ringed seal hunting 

typically peaks between March and 

August but continues into September, as 

well (SRBA 2010). Although residents 

reported hunting ringed seals up to 

approximately 30 mi (48 km) from 

shore, the highest numbers of 

overlapping use areas generally occur 

within a few miles from shore (SRBA 

2010). The total use area for ringed seal 

from 1995–2006 encompassed 

approximately 2,139 mi2 (5540 km2). 

Harvest of ringed seals by Kaktovik 

hunters does not typically occur to the 

west of Camden Bay. Additionally, 

impacts to ringed seals are expected to 

include temporary behavioral 

disturbances and some slight PTS 

within the lower frequencies associated 

with pile driving. Serious injury or 

mortality of ringed seals is not 

anticipated from the planned activities, 

and the activities are not expected to 

have any impacts on ringed seal 

reproductive or survival rates, or to 

impact availability of ringed seals. 

Therefore, AK LNG project activities are 

not expected to impact Kaktovik ringed 

seal harvests. 

Kaktovik hunters harvested 126 

pounds of spotted seals in 1992 (ADF&G 

CSIS; retrieved and analyzed August 15, 

2018). Spotted seals were not reported 

harvested in 2006 survey interviews 

conducted in Nuiqsut (SRBA 2010). 

Kaktovik bearded seal hunting occurs 

along the coast as far west as Prudhoe 

Bay and as far east as the United States/ 

Canada border (SRBA 2010). Residents 

reported looking for bearded seal as far 

as approximately 30 mi (48 km) from 

shore, but generally hunt them closer to 

shore, up to 5 mi (8 km; SRBA 2010). 

Between 1994 –2003, 29 bearded seals 

were taken in Kaktovik. In 2006, 7 

people (18 percent of survey 

respondents) indicated that they had 

recently hunted for bearded seals in 

Kaktovik (SRBA 2010). Bearded seal 

hunting activities, like ringed seal, begin 

in March, peaking in July and August, 

and then conclude in September (SRBA 

2010). 

The community of Kaktovik is 

approximately 100 (direct) mi (160 km) 

from the planned project at Prudhoe 

Bay; subsistence activities for these 

communities primarily occur outside of 

the project construction area and the 

associated Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. The planned 

construction and use of improvements 

to West Dock would occur in Prudhoe 

Bay, adjacent to existing oil and gas 

infrastructures, and in an area that is not 

typically used for subsistence other than 

extremely limited bearded seal hunting 

by residents of Kaktovik. 

Because of the distance from Kaktovik 

and Kaktovik’s very limited use of 

waters offshore of Prudhoe Bay, and 

because the planned activities would 

occur in an already-developed area, it is 

unlikely that the planned activities 

would have any effects on the use of 

marine mammals for subsistence by 

residents of Kaktovik. Further, the 

planned activities are not expected to 

impact marine mammals in numbers or 

locations sufficient to render them 

unavailable for subsistence harvest 

given the short-term, temporary, and 

localized nature of construction 

activities, and the planned mitigation 

measures. Impacts to marine mammals 

would mostly include limited, 

temporary behavioral disturbances of 

seals, with some potential slight PTS 

within the lower frequencies associated 

with pile driving. Serious injury or 

mortality of marine mammals is not 

anticipated from the planned activities, 

and the activities are not expected to 

have any impacts on reproductive or 

survival rates of any marine mammal 

species. Therefore, we do not discuss 

Kaktovik’s subsistence activities further. 

Nuiqsut 

The planned construction activities 

would occur closest to the marine 

subsistence use area used by the Native 

Village of Nuiqsut. Nuiqsut is located on 

the west bank of the Nechelik Channel 

on the lower Colville River, about 25 mi 

(40 km) from the Arctic Ocean and 

approximately 150 mi (242 km) 

southeast of Utqiag ̇vik. Nuiqsut 

subsistence hunters utilize an extensive 

search area, spanning 16,322 mi2 (km2) 

across the central Arctic Slope (see 

Figure 19 of AGDC’s application, Brown 

et al., 2016). Marine mammal hunting is 

primarily concentrated in two areas: 1) 

Harrison Bay, between Atigaru Point 

and Oliktok Point, including a 

northward extent of approximately 50 

mi (80 km) beyond the Colville River 

Delta (Brown et al., 2016); and 2) east 

of the Colville River Delta between 

Prudhoe and Foggy Island bays, which 

includes an area of approximately 100 

square mi surrounding the Midway 

Islands, McClure Island and Cross 

Island (Brown et al., 2016). The 

community of Nuiqsut uses subsistence 

harvest areas adjacent to the planned 

construction area; however, West Dock 

is not a common hunting area, nor is it 

visited regularly by Nuiqsut subsistence 

hunters primarily because of its 

industrial history. 

The community of Nuiqsut also 

harvests ringed, spotted and bearded 

seals. Seal hunting typically begins in 

April and May with the onset of warmer 

temperatures. Many residents continue 

to hunt seals after spring breakup as 

well (Brown et al., 2016). 

The most important seal hunting area 

for Nuiqsut hunters is off the Colville 

Delta, an area extending as far west as 

Fish Creek and as far east as Pingok 

Island. Seal hunting search areas by 

Nuiqsut hunters also included Harrison 

Bay, and a 30-mi (48-km) stretch 

northeast of Nuiqsut between the 

Colville and Kuparuk rivers, near 

Simpson Lagoon and Jones Islands 

(Brown et al., 2016). Cross Island is a 

productive area for seals, but is too far 

from Nuiqsut to be used on a regular 

basis. Seal subsistence use areas of 

Nuiqsut from 1995 through 2006 are 

depicted in Figure 21 of AGDC’s 

application. 

Ringed seals are an important 

subsistence resource for Native 

Alaskans living in communities along 

the Beaufort Sea coast. Nuiqsut 

residents commonly harvest ringed seal 

in the Beaufort Sea during the summer 

months (SRBA 2010). There are a higher 

number of use areas extending east and 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10691 

west of the Colville River delta. 

Residents reported traveling as far as 

Cape Halkett to the west and Camden 

Bay to the east in search of ringed seal. 

Survey respondents reported traveling 

offshore up to 30 mi (48 km; SRBA 

2010). Residents reported hunting 

ringed seals throughout the late spring, 

summer, and early fall with a higher 

number of use areas reported in June, 

July, and August (SRBA 2010). In 2006, 

12 people (36 percent of survey 

respondents) indicated that they had 

recently hunted for ringed seals in 

Nuiqsut (SRBA 2010). 

Nuiqsut bearded seal use areas extend 

as far west as Cape Halkett, as far east 

as Camden Bay, and offshore up to 40 

mi (64 km). In 2006, 12 people (69 

percent of survey respondents) 

indicated that they had recently hunted 

for bearded seals in Nuiqsut (SRBA 

2010). Nuiqsut hunters reported hunting 

bearded seal during the summer season 

in open water as the seals are following 

the ice pack. Residents reported hunting 

bearded seal between June and 

September, although a small number of 

use areas were reportedly used in May 

and October (SRBA 2010). The number 

of reported bearded seal use areas peak 

in July and August, when the majority 

of seals are available along the ice pack 

(SRBA 2010). 

Nuiqsut’s bowhead whale hunt occurs 

in the fall at Cross Island, a barrier 

island located approximately 12 mi (19 

km) northwest of West Dock. Nuiqsut 

whalers base their activities from Cross 

Island (Galginaitis 2014), and the 

whaling search and the harvest areas 

typically are concentrated north of the 

island. Hunting activities between 1997 

and 2006 occurred almost as far west as 

Thetis Island, as far east as Barter Island 

(Kaktovik), and up to approximately 50 

mi (80 km) offshore (SRBA 2010). 

Harvest locations in 1973–2011 and GPS 

tracks of 2001–2011 whaling efforts are 

shown in Figure 19 of AGDC’s 

application. 

Bowhead whales are harvested by 

Nuiqsut whalers during the fall whaling 

season. Nuiqsut residents typically hunt 

bowhead whales in September, although 

a small number of use areas were 

reported in August and extending into 

October (SRBA 2010). Pile driving will 

not occur during Nuiqsut whaling, as 

stated in the Mitigation Measures 

section. 

Nuiqsut subsistence hunting crews 

operating from Cross Island have 

harvested three to four bowhead whales 

per year (Bacon et al., 2009; Galginaitis 

2014). In 2014, the AEWC allocated 

Nuiqsut a quota of four bowhead whales 

each year; however, through transfers of 

quota from other communities, in 2015 

Nuiqsut was able to harvest five whales 

(Brown et al., 2016). In 2006, 10 people 

(30 percent of survey respondents) in 

Nuiqsut indicated that they had recently 

hunted for bowhead whales (SRBA 

2010). In 2016, Nuiqsut whaling crews 

harvested four bowhead whales 

(Suydam et al., 2017). 

Nuiqsut is 70 mi (112 km) away from 

the planned project, and is likely to be 

the community that has the greatest 

potential to experience any impacts to 

subsistence practices. AGDC asserts that 

the primary potential for AK LNG 

project impacts to Nuiqsut’s subsistence 

use of marine mammals is associated 

with barge activity, which it states could 

interfere with summer seal and fall 

bowhead whale hunting (Alaska LNG 

2016). As described previously, barging 

activity is unlikely to incidentally take 

marine mammals; however, the noise or 

presence of barges could affect the 

behavior of whales in a manner that 

makes successful harvests more 

difficult. Although barge activities 

would not cease during Nuiqsut’s fall 

bowhead whale hunting activities, the 

final IHA requires vessels to transit 

landward of Cross Island during the 

entirety of the Nuiqsut whaling season 

(approximately August 25-September 

15, though the exact dates may change). 

Pile driving associated with 

construction at West Dock could affect 

subsistence hunting of bowhead whales, 

as the Level B harassment zones extend 

up to 4.6 km from the pile driving site 

for some pile and hammer type 

combinations. As such, AGDC will not 

pile drive during the Nuiqsut whaling 

season (see Mitigation Measures). AGDC 

has consulted with AEWC and NSB on 

mitigation measures to limit impacts 

(Alaska LNG 2016), and has continued 

to provide formal and informal project 

updates to these groups, and is 

committed to continuing coordination 

as described in AGDC’s POC. 

The planned activities are not 

expected to impact marine mammals in 

numbers or locations sufficient to 

render them unavailable for subsistence 

harvest given the short-term, temporary, 

and localized nature of construction 

activities, and the planned mitigation 

measures. Impacts to marine mammals 

would mostly include limited, 

temporary behavioral disturbances of 

seals, however, some slight PTS within 

the lower frequencies associated with 

pile driving is possible. Serious injury 

or mortality of marine mammals is not 

anticipated from the planned activities, 

and the activities are not expected to 

have any impacts on reproductive or 

survival rates of any marine mammal 

species. 

In summary, impacts to subsistence 

hunting are not expected due to the 

distance between West Dock 

construction and primary seal hunting 

areas, the limited extent of impacts to 

marine mammals (Level B harassment, 

and slight Level A harassment for a 

small number of seals) and planned 

mitigation during the Nuiqsut bowhead 

whale hunt. 

Mitigation Measures 

In order to issue an IHA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to the 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

the species or stock for taking for certain 

subsistence uses. NMFS regulations 

require applicants for incidental take 

authorizations to include information 

about the availability and feasibility 

(economic and technological) of 

equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10692 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

In addition to the measures described 

later in this section, AGDC will employ 

the following mitigation measures: 

• Conduct briefings between 

construction supervisors and crews and 

the marine mammal monitoring team 

prior to the start of all pile driving 

activity and when new personnel join 

the work, to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures; 

• For in-water construction, heavy 

machinery activities other than pile 

driving, if a marine mammal comes 

within 10 m (33 ft), operations shall 

cease and vessels shall reduce speed to 

the minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions; 

• For those marine mammals for 

which Level B harassment take has not 

been requested, in-water pile 

installation/removal will shut down 

immediately when it is safe to do so if 

such species are observed within or 

entering the Level B harassment zone; 

and 

• If take reaches the authorized limit 

for an authorized species, pile 

installation will be stopped as these 

species approach the Level B 

harassment zone to avoid additional 

take. 

TABLE 17—SHUTDOWN ZONES DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Activity Hammer Type 

Shutdown Zone 

(m) 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans Phocids 

11.5-inch H-Pile ............................................................................................... Impact ............ 1,200 50 500 

14-inch H-Pile .................................................................................................. Impact ............ 1,200 50 500 

Vibratory ........ 10 10 10 

48-inch Pipe Pile ............................................................................................. Impact ............ 1,600 50 500 

Sheet Piles ...................................................................................................... Vibratory ........ 20 10 10 

Screeding ......................................................................................................... ........................ 215 ........................ ........................

Aircraft must transit at an altitude of 

457 m (1,500 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. If flights 

must occur at altitudes less than 457 m 

(1,500 ft) due to environmental 

conditions, aircraft must make course 

adjustments, as needed, to maintain at 

least a 457 m (1,500 ft) separation from 

all observed marine mammals. 

Helicopters (if used) must not hover or 

circle above marine mammals. A 

minimum transit altitude is expected to 

reduce the potential for disturbance to 

marine mammals from transiting 

aircraft. 

AGDC is required to implement all 

mitigation measures described in the 

biological opinion (issued on June 3, 

2020). 

The following mitigation measures 

would apply to AGDC’s in-water 

construction activities. 

Establishment of Shutdown Zones— 

AGDC will establish shutdown zones for 

all pile driving and removal activities. 

The purpose of a shutdown zone is 

generally to define an area within which 

shutdown of the activity would occur 

upon sighting of a marine mammal (or 

in anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Shutdown zones will vary 

based on the activity type and marine 

mammal hearing group (see Table 17). 

The largest shutdown zones are 

generally for low frequency cetaceans as 

shown in Table 17. In this instance, the 

largest shutdown zone for low 

frequency cetaceans is 1,600 m. AGDC 

expects that they will be able to 

effectively observe phocids at distances 

up to 500 m, large cetaceans at 2–4 km, 

and belugas at 2–3 km. 

The placement of PSOs during all pile 

driving and removal activities 

(described in detail in the Monitoring 

and Reporting section) will ensure that 

the entire shutdown zone is visible 

during pile installation. If visibility 

degrades to where the PSO determines 

that they cannot effectively monitor the 

entire shutdown zone during pile 

driving, the applicant may continue to 

drive the pile section that was being 

driven to its target depth when visibility 

degraded to unobservable conditions, 

but will not drive additional sections of 

pile. Pile driving may continue during 

low light conditions to allow for the 

evaluation of NVDs and IR sensing 

devices. 

Monitoring for Level A and Level B 

Harassment—AGDC will monitor the 

Level B harassment zones (areas where 

SPLs are equal to or exceed the 160 dB 

rms threshold for impact driving and 

the 120 dB rms threshold during 

vibratory driving) and Level A 

harassment zones, to the extent 

practicable. Monitoring the Level A and 

Level B harassment zones enables 

observers to be aware of and 

communicate the presence of marine 

mammals in the project area outside the 

shutdown zone and thus prepare for a 

potential shutdown of activity should 

the animal enter the shutdown zone. 

Placement of PSOs on elevated 

structures on West Dock will allow 

PSOs to observe phocids within the 

Level A and Level B harassment zones, 

to an estimated distance of 500 m. 

However, due to the large Level A and 

Level B harassment zones (Table 6), 

PSOs will not be able to effectively 

observe the entire zones during all 

activities for all species. Therefore, 

marine mammal exposures within the 

visible portion of the harassment zones 

will be recorded, and potential 

exposures within the entire harassment 

zones will be estimated based upon the 

number of observed exposures and the 

percentage of the Level A or Level B 

harassment zone that was not visible. 

AGDC will also conduct acoustic 

monitoring as described in the 

Monitoring and Reporting section, 

below. 

Pre-activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving or removal of 30 minutes or 

longer occurs, PSOs will observe the 

shutdown zone and the visible portions 

of the Level A and Level B harassment 

zones for a period of 30 minutes. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot 

proceed until the animal has left the 

zone or has not been observed for 15 

minutes (pinnipeds) or 30 minutes 

(cetaceans). When a marine mammal for 

which Level B harassment take is 

authorized is present in the Level B 

harassment zone, activities may begin 

and Level B harassment take will be 

recorded. If the entire Level B 

harassment zone is not visible at the 

start of construction pile driving or 

removal activities can begin. If work 

ceases for more than 30 minutes, the 

pre-activity monitoring of both the Level 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10693 

B harassment zone and shutdown zones 

will commence. 

Nighttime Monitoring—PSOs will use 

NVDs and IR for nighttime and low 

visibility monitoring. AGDC will select 

devices for monitoring, and will test the 

devices to determine the efficacy of the 

monitoring equipment and technique. 

For a detailed explanation of AGDC’s 

plan to test the NVDs and IR equipment, 

please see AGDC’s 4MP, available 

online at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. (Please note that 

AGDC will not assess object detection at 

distance intervals using buoys as stated 

in the 4MP. Rather, they will test object 

detection on land using existing 

landmarks at known distances from 

PSOs, such as road signs.) 

Soft Start—Soft-start procedures are 

believed to provide additional 

protection to marine mammals by 

providing warning and/or giving marine 

mammals a chance to leave the area 

prior to the hammer operating at full 

capacity. For impact pile driving, 

contractors will be required to provide 

an initial set of three strikes from the 

hammer at reduced energy, followed by 

a 30-second waiting period. This 

procedure will be conducted three times 

before impact pile driving begins. Soft 

start will be implemented at the start of 

each day’s impact pile driving and at 

any time following cessation of impact 

pile driving for a period of thirty 

minutes or longer. 

Pile Driving During Contingency 

Period—In the event that AGDC must 

continue pile driving or removal during 

their contingency period (FebruaryApril 2024), AGDC must begin pile 

driving before March 1, the known onset 

of ice seal lairing season. Initiating pile 

driving before March 1 is expected to 

discourage seals from establishing 

birthing lairs near pile driving. 

Discouraging seals from establishing 

birthing lairs near pile driving will 

likely reduce potential instances of take 

by Level B harassment by reducing the 

likelihood of an individual seal 

occurring within the Level B harassment 

zone on multiple occasions, which 

would be far more likely if seals 

established lairs within the zone. 

Additionally, a subsistence advisor 

would survey areas within a buffer zone 

of DH4 where water depth is greater 

than 10 ft (3 m) to identify potential 

ringed seal structures before activity 

begins. Construction crews must avoid 

identified ice seal structures by a 

minimum of 500 ft. (150 m). NMFS 

expects these measures to prevent 

physical interaction between seals and 

construction equipment. 

AGDC does not plan to use a bubble 

curtain or other sound attenuation 

device, and NMFS concurs that sound 

attenuation is not appropriate for this 

project for the reasons described in 

NMFS’ response to Comment 5 in the 

Comments and Responses section. 

Mitigation for Subsistence Uses of 

Marine Mammals or Plan of 

Cooperation 

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) 

further 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 the 

following: 

• 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 

applicant has taken and/or will take to 

ensure that planned activities will not 

interfere with subsistence whaling or 

sealing; and 

• What plans the applicant has to 

continue to meet with the affected 

communities, both prior to and while 

conducting the activity, to resolve 

conflicts and to notify the communities 

of any changes in the operation. 

AGDC provided a draft POC to NMFS 

on March 27, 2019 and submitted 

revised versions on February 7, 2020, 

November 16, 2020, December 21, 2020, 

and most recently, January 4, 2021. The 

POC outlines AGDC’s extensive 

coordination with subsistence 

communities that may be affected by the 

AK LNG project. It includes a brief 

description of the project, community 

outreach that has already been 

conducted, as well as the concerns 

raised in those discussions and how 

they were addressed, and project 

mitigation measures. AGDC will 

continue coordination with subsistence 

communities throughout the project 

duration, and will develop a 

Communications Plan in coordination 

with subsistence groups, as described 

below and in the POC. The POC is a 

living document and has been updated 

throughout the project review and 

permitting process. The final IHA 

includes a requirement stating that 

AGDC must conduct the communication 

and coordination as described in the 

POC, which is available on our website 

at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

permit/incidental-take-authorizationsunder-marine-mammal-protection-act. 

AGDC continues to document its 

communications with the North Slope 

subsistence communities, as well as the 

substance of its communications with 

subsistence stakeholder groups, and has 

developed mitigation measures that 

include measures suggested by 

community members as well as industry 

standard measures. AGDC will continue 

to routinely engage with local 

communities and subsistence groups. 

Multiple user groups are often consulted 

simultaneously as part of larger 

coalition meetings such as the Arctic 

Safety Waterways Committee meetings. 

Local communities and subsistence 

groups identified by AGDC are listed in 

the POC. AGDC will develop a 

Communication Plan and will 

implement this plan before initiating 

construction operations to coordinate 

activities with local subsistence users, 

as well as Village Whaling Captains’ 

Associations, to minimize the risk of 

interfering with subsistence hunting 

activities, and keep current as to the 

timing and status of the bowhead whale 

hunt and other subsistence hunts. A 

project informational mailer with a 

request for community feedback 

(traditional mail, email, phone) will be 

sent to community members prior to 

construction. Following the 

construction season, AGDC intends to 

have a post-season co-management 

meeting with the commissioners and 

committee heads to discuss results of 

mitigation measures and outcomes of 

the preceding season. The goal of the 

post-season meeting is to build upon the 

knowledge base, discuss successful or 

unsuccessful outcomes of mitigation 

measures, and possibly refine plans or 

mitigation measures if necessary. 

The AEWC works annually with 

industry partners to develop a CAA. 

This agreement implements mitigation 

measures that allow industry to conduct 

their work in or transiting the vicinity 

of active subsistence hunters, in areas 

where subsistence hunters anticipate 

hunting, or in areas that are in sufficient 

proximity to areas expected to be used 

for subsistence hunting where the 

planned activities could potentially 

adversely affect the subsistence 

bowhead whale hunt through effects on 

bowhead whales, while maintaining the 

availability of bowheads for subsistence 

hunters. AGDC is required to enter the 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10694 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

CAA for the construction year by an 

order from the FERC. 

AGDC will not conduct pile driving 

during the Nuiqsut whaling season in an 

effort to eliminate effects on the 

availability of bowhead whales for 

subsistence hunting that could occur as 

a result of project noise. Nuiqsut 

whaling is approximately August 25- 

September 15, though the exact dates 

may change. 

Barging activities could potentially 

impact Nuiqsut’s fall bowhead whale 

hunt and possibly other marine 

mammal harvest activities in the 

Beaufort Sea. As mentioned previously, 

barging activities are beyond the scope 

of this IHA, and no take is expected to 

occur as a result of barging activities. 

However, the final IHA requires AGDC 

to limit barges to waters landward of 

Cross Island during the Nuiqsut whaling 

season (approximately August 25– 

September 15, though the exact dates 

may change) in an effort to avoid any 

potential impacts on subsistence uses. 

AGDC has consulted with AEWC and 

NSB on mitigation measures to limit 

impacts (Alaska LNG 2016), and has 

continued to provide formal and 

informal project updates to these 

groups, as recently as October 2020. As 

described above in the Effects of 

Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses 

of Marine Mammals section, AGDC’s 

construction activities at West Dock do 

not overlap with the areas where 

subsistence hunters typically harvest ice 

seals, and given the extent of impacts to 

seals described in that section, these 

activities are not expected to impact 

subsistence hunts of ice seals. 

Therefore, the final IHA does not 

include mitigation measures for 

subsistence harvest of ice seals; 

however, AGDC will continue to meet 

with subsistence groups, including the 

Ice Seal Committee, as described in the 

POC. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s planned measures, as well as 

other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has determined that the planned 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

subsistence uses. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the planned action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, 

available online at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. Marine mammal 

monitoring during pile driving and 

removal must be conducted by NMFSapproved PSOs in a manner consistent 

with the following: 

• Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) who have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods must be used; 

• At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization. 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

are required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator must be 

designated. The lead observer must have 

prior experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience. 

• PSOs may also substitute Alaska 

native traditional knowledge for 

experience. (NMFS recognizes that 

PSOs with traditional knowledge may 

also have prior experience, and 

therefore be eligible to serve as the lead 

PSO.); and 

• AGDC must submit PSO curriculum 

vitae for approval by NMFS prior to the 

onset of pile driving. 

PSOs should have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

At least two PSOs will be present 

during all pile driving/removal 

activities. PSOs will have an 

unobstructed view of all water within 

the shutdown zone. PSOs will observe 

as much of the Level A and Level B 

harassment zone as possible. PSO 

locations are as follows: 

i. Dock Head 4—During impact pile 

driving at DH4, two PSOs must be 

stationed to view toward the east, north, 

and west of the seawater treatment 

plant. During vibratory pile driving at 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10695 

DH4, two PSOs must monitor from each 

PSO location (four PSOs); and 

ii. Barge Bridge—During work at the 

barge bridge, two PSOs must be 

stationed at the north end of the bridge. 

PSOs will be stationed on elevated 

platforms at DH4, and on the elevated 

bridge during work at the barge bridge. 

They will possess the equipment 

described in the 4MP, including NVDs 

during nighttime monitoring. However, 

during the primary construction season, 

nighttime on the North Slope will be 

brief. Given the elevated PSO sites and 

equipment, AGDC expects that they will 

be able to effectively observe phocids at 

distances up to 500 m, large cetaceans 

at 2–4km, and belugas at 2–3km, 

however, PSOs will not be able to 

effectively observe the entire area of the 

Level A (seals only) or Level B 

harassment zones during all pile driving 

activities. 

PSOs will begin monitoring three 

days prior to the onset of pile driving 

and removal activities and continue 

through three days after completion of 

the pile driving and removal activities. 

PSOs will monitor 24 hours per day, 

even during periods when construction 

is not occurring. In addition, observers 

shall record all incidents of marine 

mammal occurrence, regardless of 

distance from activity, and shall 

document any behavioral reactions in 

concert with distance from piles being 

driven or removed. Pile driving 

activities include the time to install or 

remove a single pile or series of piles, 

as long as the time elapsed between uses 

of the pile driving equipment is no more 

than 30 minutes. 

Acoustic Monitoring 

Acoustic monitoring, to be conducted 

for purposes of measuring sound source 

levels and sound propagation, must be 

conducted in accordance with accepted 

methodology as described in an 

Acoustic Monitoring Plan, which AGDC 

must develop after its contractor is 

selected. The plan must be reviewed by 

NMFS, the NSB, and the AEWC, and 

approved by NMFS. AGDC must 

conduct acoustic monitoring for the 

number of each pile type and size 

indicated in the approved plan. NMFS 

may adjust the shutdown zones and 

revise the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones, as appropriate, 

pending review and approval of the 

results of acoustic monitoring. 

AGDC will also conduct PAM for 

marine mammals. AGDC will deploy 

three hydrophones during the openwater season to monitor for marine 

mammals, in accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Monitoring and 

Mitigation Plan, dated December 21, 

2020 and the Acoustic Monitoring Plan 

referenced above. This PAM is intended 

to inform the estimate of marine 

mammals in the Level B harassment 

zone, given that PSOs are not able to 

observe the entire zone for all species 

and activities. 

AGDC will deploy the hydrophones 

in the locations recommended by the 

PRP, as shown in Figure 4 of its Marine 

Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation 

Plan (dated December 21, 2020), and 

will adjust the locations as appropriate 

if the Level B harassment zones are 

adjusted following SSV results. AGDC 

will deploy the PAM recorders three 

days prior to the start of pile driving, 

and will retrieve them three days after 

completion of pile driving during the 

open-water season. 

Should construction be required 

during the contingency period when 

there will be ice-cover, AGDC will 

deploy one hydrophone at the end of 

the open-water season, located in 

between the 2,200 m and 4,700 m zones, 

perpendicular to the pile driving site. 

The location must be reviewed by 

NMFS, the NSB, and the AEWC, and 

approved by NMFS prior to 

deployment. Additional hydrophones 

during the contingency period are not 

warranted, as, 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). 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

marine mammal and acoustic 

monitoring or 60 days prior to the 

issuance of any subsequent IHA for this 

project, whichever comes first. The 

report will include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including precise start and stop time of 

each type of construction operation 

mode, how many and what type of piles 

were driven or removed and by what 

method (i.e., impact or vibratory); 

• Total number of hours during 

which each construction activity type 

occurred; 

• Total number of hours that PSOs 

were on duty during each construction 

activity, and total number of hours that 

PSOs were on duty during periods of no 

construction activity; 

• Weather parameters and water 

conditions during each monitoring 

period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover, 

visibility, sea state), and number of 

hours of observation that occurred 

during various visibility and sea state 

conditions; 

• The number of marine mammals 

observed, by species and operation 

mode, relative to the pile location, and 

if pile driving or removal was occurring 

at time of sighting; 

• The number of marine mammals 

observed (including periods with no 

construction); 

• Age and sex class, if possible, of all 

marine mammals observed; 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring, including 

elevation above sea level; 

• Distances and bearings of each 

marine mammal observed to the pile 

being driven or removed for each 

sighting (if pile driving or removal was 

occurring at time of sighting); 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavior patterns during observation, 

including direction of travel and 

estimated time spent within the Level A 

and Level B harassment zones while the 

source was active; 

• Number of individuals of each 

species (differentiated by month as 

appropriate) detected within the Level 

A and Level B harassment zones; 

• Histograms of perpendicular 

distances to PSO sightings, by species 

(or species group if sample sizes are 

small); 

• Sighting rates summarized into 

daily or weekly periods for the before, 

during, and after construction periods; 

• Maps showing visual detections by 

species and construction activity type. 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting behavior of the 

animal, if any; 

• Description of attempts to 

distinguish between the number of 

individual animals taken and the 

number of incidences of take, such as 

ability to track groups or individuals; 

• An estimation of potential takes, by 

species, by Level A and Level B 

harassment based on the number of 

observed exposures within the Level A 

and Level B harassment zones and the 

percentages of the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones that were not visible; 

and 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10696 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

• Submit all PSO datasheets and/or 

raw sighting data (in a separate file from 

the Final Report referenced immediately 

above). 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft report 

will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

For the SSV, AGDC’s acoustic 

monitoring report must, at minimum, 

include the following: 

• Hydrophone equipment and 

methods: Recording device, sampling 

rate, distance (m) from the pile where 

recordings were made; depth of 

recording device(s). 

• Type and size of pile being driven, 

substrate type, method of driving during 

recordings. 

• For impact pile driving: Pulse 

duration and mean, median, and 

maximum sound levels (dB re: 1mPa): 

Cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum), peak sound pressure level 

(SPLpeak), root-mean-square sound 

pressure level (SPLrms), and single-strike 

sound exposure level (SELs-s). 

• For vibratory driving/removal: 

Mean, median, and maximum sound 

levels (dB re: 1mPa): SPLrms, SELcum, 

and timeframe over which the sound is 

averaged. 

• Number of strikes (impact) or 

duration (vibratory) per pile measured, 

one-third octave band spectrum, power 

spectral density plot. 

• Estimated source levels referenced 

to 10 m, transmission loss coefficients, 

and estimated Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. 

For the PAM for marine mammals, 

AGDC’s acoustic monitoring report 

must, at minimum, include the 

following: 

• Number of marine mammal 

detections (including species, date and 

time of detections, and type of pile 

driving underway during each 

detection, if applicable). 

• Detection rates summarized into 

daily or weekly periods for the before, 

during, and after construction periods. 

• Received sound levels from pile 

driving activity. 

• The following hydrophone 

equipment and method information: 

Recording devices, sampling rate, 

sensitivity of the PAM equipment, 

locations of the hydrophones, duty 

cycle, distance (m) from the pile where 

recordings were made, depth of 

recording devices, depth of water in 

area of recording devices. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

IHA-holder shall report the incident to 

the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

(301–427–8401), NMFS and to the 

Alaska regional stranding coordinator 

(907–586–7209) as soon as feasible. If 

the death or injury was clearly caused 

by the specified activity, the IHA-holder 

must immediately cease the specified 

activities until NMFS is able to review 

the circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of the IHA. 

The IHA-holder must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Monitoring Plan Peer Review 

The MMPA requires that monitoring 

plans be independently peer reviewed 

where the proposed activity may affect 

the availability of a species or stock for 

taking for subsistence uses (16 U.S.C. 

1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this 

requirement, NMFS’ implementing 

regulations state that upon receipt of a 

complete monitoring plan, and at its 

discretion, NMFS will either submit the 

plan to members of a PRP for review or 

within 60 days of receipt of the 

proposed monitoring plan, schedule a 

workshop to review the plan (50 CFR 

216.108(d)). 

NMFS established an independent 

PRP to review AGDC’s Monitoring Plan 

for the planned project in Prudhoe Bay. 

NMFS provided AGDC’s monitoring 

plan to the PRP and asked them to 

answer the following questions: 

1. Will the applicant’s stated 

objectives effectively further the 

understanding of the impacts of their 

activities on marine mammals and 

otherwise accomplish the goals stated 

below? If not, how should the objectives 

be modified to better accomplish the 

goals below? 

2. Can the applicant achieve the 

stated objectives based on the methods 

described in the plan? 

3. Are there technical modifications to 

the proposed monitoring techniques and 

methodologies proposed by the 

applicant that should be considered to 

better accomplish the objectives? 

4. Are there techniques not proposed 

by the applicant (i.e., additional 

monitoring techniques or 

methodologies) that should be 

considered for inclusion in the 

applicant’s monitoring program to better 

accomplish the objectives? 

5. What is the best way for an 

applicant to present their data and 

results (formatting, metrics, graphics, 

etc.) in the required reports that are to 

be submitted to NMFS (i.e., 90-day 

report)? 

The PRP met in March 2020 and 

subsequently provided a final report to 

NMFS containing recommendations that 

the panel members felt were applicable 

to AGDC’s monitoring plan. The panel 

concluded that the objectives are 

appropriate; however, they provided 

some recommendations to improve 

AGDC’s ability to achieve their stated 

objectives. The PRP’s primary 

recommendations and comments are 

summarized and addressed below. The 

PRP’s full report is available on our 

website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

The PRP recommended that AGDC 

station PSOs on elevated platforms to 

increase sighting distance. NMFS 

agrees, and the final IHA requires AGDC 

to provide elevated monitoring locations 

for PSOs. The structures would vary 

depending on the construction location. 

The PRP recommended that PSOs 

focus on scanning the shoreline and 

water, alternately with visual scans and 

using binoculars, to detect as many 

animals as possible rather than 

following individual animals for any 

length of time to collect detailed 

behavioral information. NMFS requires 

PSOs to document and report the 

behavior of marine mammals observed 

within the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. While NMFS agrees 

that PSOs should not document 

behavior at the expense of detecting 

other marine mammals, particularly 

within the shutdown zone, we are 

asking PSOs to record an estimate of the 

amount of time that an animal spends 

in the harassment zone, which is 

important to help understand the 

likelihood of incurring PTS (given the 

duration component of the thresholds) 

and the severity of behavioral 

disturbance. 

The PRP recommended that the PSOs 

record visibility conditions at regular 

intervals (e.g., every five minutes) and 

as they change throughout the day. The 

panel recommended using either laser 

range finders or a series of ‘‘landmarks’’ 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10697 

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. AGDC’s field lead PSO will 

record this information during 

construction. 

The PRP commended AGDC’s 

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 AGDC’s 

ability to shut down at the proposed 

distances, and AGDC’s 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 

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, AGDC’s 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 

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 AGDC’s 

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 AGDC’s open water work 

window by at least one month. 

Additionally, while AGDC’s 

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 AGDC’s 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. 


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 2–3 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 2–3 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 

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 NMFS’s 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 

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 24- 

hour 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 AGDC’s construction. Level B 

harassment will be reduced to the level 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10699 

of least practicable adverse impact 

through use of mitigation measures 

described herein. If sound produced by 

project activities is sufficiently 

disturbing, animals are likely to simply 

avoid the area while the activity is 

occurring. While vibratory driving 

associated with the project may produce 

sound at distances of many km from the 

project site, the project site itself is 

located in an active industrial area, as 

previously described. Therefore, we 

expect that animals disturbed by project 

sound will simply avoid the area and 

use more-preferred habitats. 

In addition to the expected effects 

resulting from authorized Level B 

harassment, we anticipate that ringed 

seals, spotted seals, and bearded seals 

may sustain some limited Level A 

harassment in the form of auditory 

injury. However, animals that 

experience PTS will likely only receive 

slight PTS, i.e. minor degradation of 

hearing capabilities within regions of 

hearing that align most completely with 

the frequency range of the energy 

produced by pile driving, i.e. the lowfrequency region below 2 kHz, not 

severe hearing impairment or 

impairment in the regions of greatest 

hearing sensitivity. If hearing 

impairment occurs, it is most likely that 

the affected animal will lose a few dB 

in its hearing sensitivity, which in most 

cases is not likely to meaningfully affect 

its ability to forage and communicate 

with conspecifics. 

Habitat disturbance and alteration 

resulting from project activities could 

have a few highly localized, short-term 

effects for a few marine mammals; 

however, the area of affected habitat 

would be small compared to that 

available to marine mammal species. 

The activities may cause some fish to 

leave the area of disturbance, thus 

temporarily impacting marine 

mammals’ foraging opportunities in a 

limited portion of the foraging range. 

We do not expect pile driving activities 

to have significant, long-term 

consequences to marine invertebrate 

populations. Given the short duration of 

the activities and the relatively small 

area of the habitat that may be affected, 

the impacts to marine mammal habitat, 

including fish and invertebrates, are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm negative consequences to marine 

mammals or to populations of fish or 

invertebrate species. 

AGDC’s February to April pile driving 

contingency period overlaps with the 

period when ringed seals are 

constructing subnivean lairs, giving 

birth, and nursing pups. As discussed in 

the Mitigation Measures section, AGDC 

will be required to begin construction 

prior to March 1 when ringed seals are 

known to begin constructing lairs. As 

such, we expect that ringed seals will 

construct their lairs away from the pile 

driving operations, therefore 

minimizing disturbance and avoiding 

any potential for physical injury to seals 

in lairs. Additionally, we expect that 

AGDC will complete the majority, if not 

all of the pile driving during the open 

water season, so any pile driving that 

did remain could likely be completed in 

the earlier portion of the contingency 

period, further reducing the potential 

for impacts to ringed seals while lairing 

or pupping. 

As stated in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section, since publication of 

the proposed IHA (85 FR 43382; July 16, 

2020), NMFS published a proposed rule 

for the Designation of Critical Habitat 

for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal 

(86 FR 1433; January 8, 2021) and a 

revised proposed rule for the 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal (86 

FR 1452; January 8, 2021). NMFS 

considered the information provided in 

each proposed rule, and determined that 

neither proposed rule presents new 

information that changes NMFS’ 

analyses, the take estimates, or any of 

the findings, for either species. 

As described in the notice of the 

proposed IHA (85 FR 43382; July 16, 

2020), unusual mortality events (UMEs) 

have been declared for both gray whales 

and ice seals; however, the take 

authorized here does not provide a 

cause for concern for any of these 

populations when considered in the 

context of these UMEs. For gray whales, 

the estimated abundance of the Eastern 

North Pacific stock is 26,960 (Carretta et 

al., 2019) and the stock abundance has 

increased approximately 22 percent in 

comparison with 2010/2011 population 

levels (Durban et al., 2017). For bearded 

seals, the minimum estimated mean M/ 

SI (6,709) is well below the calculated 

partial PBR (8,210). This PBR is only a 

portion of that of the entire stock, as it 

does not include bearded seals that 

overwinter and breed in the Beaufort or 

Chukchi Seas (Muto et al., 2019). For 

the Alaska stock of ringed seals and the 

Alaska stock of spotted seals, the M/SI 

(863 and 5,254, respectively) is well 

below the PBR for each stock (5,100 and 

12,697, respectively) (Muto et al., 2019). 

No serious injury or mortality is 

expected or authorized here, and Level 

B harassment takes of gray whale and 

ice seal species, and Level A harassment 

takes of ice seals will be reduced to the 

level of least practicable adverse impact 

through the incorporation of the 

mitigation measures. As such, the 

authorized Level B harassment takes of 

gray whales and ice seals and Level A 

harassment takes of ice seals are not 

expected to exacerbate or compound 

upon the ongoing UMEs. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• The relatively small number of 

Level A harassment exposures, for seals 

only, are anticipated to result only in 

slight PTS within the lower frequencies 

associated with pile driving; 

• The intensity of anticipated takes 

by Level B harassment is minimized 

through implementation of the 

mitigation measures described above. 

While some instances of TTS could 

occur, the majority of Level B 

harassment takes will likely be in the 

form of avoidance of the project area, 

temporary cessation of foraging and 

vocalizing, or changes in dive behavior; 

• The area impacted by the specified 

activity is very small relative to the 

overall habitat ranges of all species; 

• The Level B harassment zones do 

not overlap with known important areas 

for bowhead, gray, or beluga whale, 

including, specifically, any of the BIAs 

identified in the region (Clarke et al., 

2015); 

• Impacts to critical behaviors such as 

lairing and pupping by ringed seals 

would be avoided and minimized 

through implementation of mitigation 

measures described above; and 

• AGDC would cease pile driving 

during the Nuiqsut whaling season, 

therefore minimizing the amount or 

severity of take of bowhead whale 

during a time where animals are 

expected to migrate by in relatively 

higher density. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

planned monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the planned 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

all affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
10700 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The number of instances of take for 

each species or stock authorized to be 

taken as a result of this project is 

included in Table 16. Our analysis 

shows that less than one-third of the 

best available population abundance 

estimate of each stock could be taken by 

harassment (in fact, take of individuals 

is at most less than two percent of the 

abundance for all affected stocks). The 

number of animals authorized to be 

taken for each stock would be 

considered small relative to the relevant 

stock’s abundances even if each 

estimated taking occurred to a new 

individual, which is an unlikely 

scenario. 

For beluga whale, the percentages in 

Table 16 conservatively assume that all 

takes of beluga whale will be accrued to 

each stock; however, we expect that 

most, if not all, beluga whales taken by 

this project will be from the Beaufort 

Sea stock. 

For the Alaska stock of bearded seals, 

a complete stock abundance value is not 

available. As noted in the 2019 Draft 

Alaska SAR (Muto et al., 2019), an 

abundance estimate is currently only 

available for the portion of bearded seals 

in the Bering Sea (Conn et al., 2012). 

The current abundance estimate for the 

Bering Sea is 301,836 bearded seals. 

Given the authorized 300 Level B 

harassment takes and 2 Level A 

harassment takes for the stock, 

comparison to the Bering Sea estimate, 

which is only a portion of the Alaska 

Stock (which also includes animals in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas), shows 

that, at most, less than one percent of 

the stock is expected to be impacted. 

A complete stock abundance value is 

also not available for the Alaska stock of 

ringed seals. As noted in the 2019 Draft 

Alaska SAR (Muto et al., 2019), the 

abundance estimate available, 171,418 

animals, is only a partial estimate of the 

Bering Sea portion of the population 

(Conn et al., 2014). As noted in the SAR, 

this estimate does not include animals 

in the shore fast ice zone, and the 

authors did not account for availability 

bias. Muto et al. (2019) expect that the 

Bering Sea portion of the population is 

actually much higher. Given the 

authorized 1,765 Level B harassment 

takes and 9 Level A harassment takes for 

the stock, comparison to the Bering Sea 

partial estimate, which is only a portion 

of the Alaska Stock (also includes 

animals in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas), shows that, at most, less than two 

percent of the stock is expected to be 

impacted. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the planned mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population size 

of the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

Given the nature of the activity, and 

the required mitigation measures, 

serious injury and mortality of marine 

mammals is not expected to occur. 

Impacts to marine mammals would 

mostly include limited, temporary 

behavioral disturbances of seals, 

however, some slight PTS in seals 

within the lower frequencies associated 

with pile driving is possible. 

Additionally, a small number of takes of 

bowhead whales, by Level B harassment 

only, are predicted to occur in the 

vicinity of AGDC’s activity. As 

described above, the required mitigation 

measures, such as implementation of 

shutdown zones, are expected to reduce 

the frequency and severity of takes of 

marine mammals. 

Project activities could deter target 

species from Prudhoe Bay and the area 

ensonified above the relevant 

harassment thresholds. However, as 

noted in the Effects of Specified 

Activities on Subsistence Uses of 

Marine Mammals section, subsistence 

use of seals is extremely limited in this 

area, as it is not within the preferred 

and frequented hunting areas. Bowhead 

whales typically remain outside of the 

area between the barrier islands and 

Prudhoe Bay, minimizing the likelihood 

of impacts from AGDC’s project. The 

authorized takes are not expected to 

affect the fitness of any bowhead 

whales, or cause significant deflection 

outside of the typical migratory path in 

areas where subsistence hunts occur. 

Additionally, during the Nuiqsut 

whaling season, the final IHA requires 

AGDC to cease pile driving and project 

vessels must transit landward of Cross 

Island, therefore minimizing the 

potential impact to the Nuiqsut hunt. 

AGDC will continue to coordinate with 

local communities and subsistence 

groups to minimize impacts of the 

project, as described in the POC, which 

the IHA requires AGDC to abide by. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity and the potential 

impacts described in the Effects of 

Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses 

of Marine Mammals section, the 

measures described to minimize adverse 

effects on the availability of marine 

mammals for subsistence purposes, as 

well as the mitigation measures required 

to directly reduce impacts to the 

affected species and stocks, NMFS has 

determined that there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from AGDC’s planned 

activities. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

Accordingly, NMFS adopted the FERC’s 

EIS, as our independent evaluation of 

the document finds that it includes 

adequate information analyzing the 

effects on the human environment of 

issuing the IHA. NMFS is a cooperating 

agency on the FERC’s EIS. 

The FERC’s EIS was made available 

for public comment from June 28, 2019 

to October 3, 2019. The FERC’s Final 

EIS is available at https://www.ferc.gov/ 

industries/gas/enviro/eis/2020/03-06- 

20-FEIS.asp. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) requires that each Federal agency 

insure that any action it authorizes, 

funds, or carries out is not likely to 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10701 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for 

the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults 

internally whenever we propose to 

authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species, in this case with the 

AKRO. 

NMFS authorized take of bowhead 

whale, bearded seal (Beringia distinct 

population segment) and ringed seal 

(Arctic subspecies), which are listed 

under the ESA. On January 8, 2021, 

NMFS published a proposed rule for the 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal (86 FR 

1433; January 8, 2021) and a revised 

proposed rule for the Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Arctic 

Subspecies of the Ringed Seal (86 FR 

1452; January 8, 2021). Neither ESA 

critical habitat rule has been finalized. 

The NMFS AKRO issued a Biological 

Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on 

the issuance of an IHA to AGDC under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources. 

The Biological Opinion concluded that 

the action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any of these 

species. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to AGDC for 

the potential harassment of small 

numbers of six marine mammal species 

incidental to construction of the AK 

LNG project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

requirements are followed. 

Dated: February 16, 2021. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03472 Filed 2–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES2