The final ESA milestone was extended to be consistent with previous project schedule extension due to the last government shutdown (the EIS timing was extended, which necessitated an extension of MMPA dates). Having the EIS, MMPA, and ESA dates coincide will streamline the process compared to how it currently exists. If NMFS is able to work with FERC and AGDC on all marine-mammal-related permitting issues concurrently, it will save delays caused by the need to reinitiate formal section 7 consultation based upon changes in the action (e.g. alterations to mitigation measures that will almost certainly occur). Therefore, NMFS is seeking to change the due date for the ESA section 7 Biological Opinion from 1/12/19 to 6/4/20, the date that the MMPA IHA is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register. NMFS notes that our Biological Opinion is not valid until the MMPA IHA is issued anyway. It is believed that this extension of the ESA date actually saves time by avoiding the potential need for re-initiating consultation. Please see below for answers to the review questions above: 1 - Is the project sponsor concerned with the date change? The project sponsor (AGDC) was made aware of the date change. Their concern is mainly related to how this change impacts FERC's EIS schedule. As noted above, the EIS schedule was changed to adjust for the prior government shutdown. The changes to the ESA date is to align it with the currently published MMPA date for publication of the final rule (6/4/20). The MMPA dates were also previously adjusted to account for the change in the EIS schedule. As the MMPA date change was not an issue for FERC's EIS schedule, it is not thought that the change in ESA dates to be consistent with MMPA dates would adversely impact the EIS schedule. 2 - Does the date change affect any other aspects of the permitting timetable? If so, did you coordinate with the affected agencies? The reason for the date change is to be consistent with other changes that have been made to the permitting timetable. The date for the overall project and EIS had shifted, which shifted the dates for MMPA, so the ESA date is shifting to be consistent with those changes. Therefore, there should be no other effects to the permitting timetable due to the date change. 3 - Have any issues related to this date change been documented in the project’s CPP or discussed at the project-specific CERPO meeting? There haven't been project-specific CERPO meetings, but FERC, AGDC, and the DOC/NOAA/NMFS CERPO have all been made aware of the change. The change can be documented in the next quarterly update to the CPP. 4 - Is there opportunity for the permitting timetable to be adjusted to make up for the time lost as a result of this delay? This is not applicable. The permitting timetable was previously adjusted and this extension request is to ensure that the final ESA date is consistent with those previous changes. 5 - Has your agency CERPO and/or the lead agency CERPO for the project been made aware of the delay and the possible effect it may have on the project? Yes, the DOC/NOAA/NMFS CERPO has been made aware of the change and there were no concerns.