[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22099-22117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09599]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XF341
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental To Conducting Subsea Cable Operations
and Maintenance Activities in the Arctic Ocean
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Quintillion Subsea
Operations, LLC (Quintillion) for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to conducting subsea cable-laying and maintenance activities
in the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi seas. Pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its
proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 12,
2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments
should be sent to [email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm without change. All personal
identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
[[Page 22100]]
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce 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 authorization is
provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth.
NMFS has defined negligible impact in 50 CFR 216.103 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.
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.
The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt,
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, 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).
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 with respect to environmental
consequences on the human environment.
NMFS prepared the Final Environmental Assessment for the Issuance
of an Incidental Harassment Authorization for the Take of Marine
Mammals by Harassment Incidental to the Alaska Phase of the Quintillion
Subsea Project in the U.S. Arctic Ocean (2016 EA) and issued a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the issuance of an IHA to
Quintillion in 2016. After reviewing and considering (1) the
Quintillion's 2017 IHA application, (2) the 2016 EA and FONSI, and (3)
2016 Quintillion monitoring report, NMFS preliminarily determined the
issuance of an IHA to Quintillion for its 2017 activities falls within
the scope of the analysis in the 2016 EA. NMFS preliminarily determined
issuance another IHA to Quintillion would not result in significant
adverse effects, individually or cumulatively, on the human
environment. As such, NMFS preliminarily determined the issuance of an
IHA to Quintillion does not require the preparation of a Supplemental
Environmental Assessment.
NMFS' 2016 EA is available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA processor making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On November 18, 2016, Quintillion submitted an IHA application and
marine mammal mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP) for the taking of
marine mammal species incidental to conducting subsea cable-laying and
operation and maintenance (O&M) activities in the Beaufort, Bering, and
Chukchi seas. After receiving NMFS comments on the initial application,
Quintillion made revisions to its IHA application on December 20, 2016,
and January 23, 2017. NMFS determined that the application and the 4MP
were adequate and complete on February 13, 2017.
The request continues work conducted in the 2016 open-water season,
which was covered under a previous IHA (81 FR 40274; June 21, 2016).
Noise generated from cable-laying and associated maintenance and
repair activities could impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the
activities. Take, by Level B harassment, of individuals of 13 species
of marine mammals is proposed to be authorized from the specified
activity. No mortality or Level A harassment is expected or proposed.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
In 2016, Quintillion installed substantial portions of a subsea
fiber-optic cable network along the northern and western coasts of
Alaska to provide high speed Internet connectivity to six rural Alaska
communities. In 2017, Quintillion plans to complete the cable
installation work that includes a 76-kilometer (km) (47-mile (mi))
Oliktok branch, system testing, branching unit (BU) burial, and
operations and maintenance of any areas that do not meet testing
requirements.
Dates and Duration
The proposed subsea cable installation, maintenance, and repair
activities for the 2017 open water season are planned between July 1
and November 15. All associated activities, including mobilization,
cable lay, and demobilization of survey and support crews, will occur
between the above dates. Pre-trenching operations at the Oliktok branch
will begin as soon as the cable vessels can access open water.
Specified Geographic Region
The proposed cable-laying activities in the 2017 open-water season
would be conducted between the Horizontal Directionally Drilled (HDD)
pile and the Oliktok BU in coastal Beaufort Sea, as shown in Figure 1-2
of the IHA application.
Operations, maintenance, and repair activities could occur anywhere
along the subsea cable lines within the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort
seas. All areas along the subsea cable lines were considered in the
2016 EA. The existence and location of any potential faults in the
system is unknown at this
[[Page 22101]]
time. If a fault is found, a section of the cable would be retrieved,
repaired, and laid back down. Several BUs, located at the junction of
the mainline and a branching route, were not buried in 2016. They will
be buried in 2017, with protective concrete mattresses placed over
them.
Detailed Description of Specific Activities
Quintillion intends to complete the 76-km (47-mi) Oliktok segment
in summer 2017 using a variety of cable-lay equipment, depending on
water depth. The branch line will be addressed in three sections:
Section 1: An approximately 6.0-km (3.7-mi) very shallow nearshore
segment (from the HDD exit to approximately Kilometer Point (KP) 6.5)
where trenching will occur using a construction barge equipped with a
vibro plow. The barge will winch itself along the route using moored
anchors. The moored anchors will be first placed by a pontoon barge
that will be positioned in place with a small river tug. The moorings
will be placed with a derrick operating from the deck of the barge. The
pontoon barge will also be used to retrieve the mooring after the cable
is laid. Dominant noise will emanate from the river tug maneuvering the
barges. The tug will not pull anchors along this section.
Section 2: An approximately 12.5-km (7.8-mi) transition section (KP
6.5 to KP 16) where the work will be conducted from the construction
barge again using a vibro plow. Here the barge will winch along anchor
lines as within Section 1, but the anchors will be placed and pulled by
a midsize anchor-handling tug, which will produce the dominant noise
along this section.
Section 3: An approximately 60-km (37-mi) offshore section (KP 16
to KP 76) where the cable will be laid by the cable-ship Ile de Batz
using a sea plow that both cuts a trench and lays the cable.
Prior to cable-laying, seafloor sediment along the 60-km route
segment will be loosened by making multiple passes of the route with
the sea plow (sans the cable), set to varied depths. The dominant noise
will be from the ship's drive propeller and thrusters while pulling the
plow.
In addition to the activities described above, Quintillion plans to
conduct an O&M program in 2017, whereby the cable system is tested for
faults and repaired as needed (using the Ile de Batz). Repair
operations would involve retrieving, reinstalling, and then potentially
reburying cable. The amount of cable that would need to be retrieved is
dependent on water depth and could involve several kilometers for each
fault repair. If required, the cable would then be reburied using a
remove operated vehicle (ROV) equipped with a jetting tool. BUs will be
buried after the Oliktok branch cable is laid, or before if ice delays
the Ile de Batz access to the branch. O&M activities may also include
testing of equipment, including the sea plow, prior to pre-trenching to
ensure performance standards will be met.
Vessels
The 2016 offshore (waters >12 meters (m); >39 ft feet (ft) deep)
cable-lay operations were conducted by the Ile de Brehat and its sister
ship the Ile de Sein. The third sister of the Alcatel cable ships, the
Ile de Batz, will be used in the 2017 operations. As with the sister
ships, the Ile de Batz is 140 m (460 ft) in length, 23 m (77 ft) in
breadth, and is propelled by two 4,000 kilowatt (kW) fixed-pitch
propellers.
The ship will be used to pull the sea plow during cable-lay
operations along Section 3 of the Oliktok route, and it will also be
used during any cable retrieval and reburial operations during O&M
activities (including pre-burial testing of the plow), and during post-
lay inspection (PLI), post-lay burial (PLB), and mattressing
operations.
Prior to laying cable along Section 3 of the Oliktok route, the Ile
de Batz will also prepare the seafloor for cable lay by making several
passes along the route with the sea plow. This would include a 60-km
pass with the plow set to 2 m deep, a 23-km pass with the plow set to
3-m depth, and two 17-km passes set to 4-m depth, followed by actual
laying of 60 km of cable. Thus, the Ile de Batz will make five passes
of varied length, totaling 187 km (116 mi), along Section 3.
During pre-trenching and cable-lay operations the Ile de Batz will
be tendered by the 200-ft MV Discovery. The purpose of this ship is to
retrieve parts and supplies as needed, and monitor for approaching ice.
Most of the time it will lay idle near Ile de Batz and will not be
producing loud cavitation noises except in emergency situations.
Section 1 of the Oliktok branch will be trenched using a vibro plow
attached to a construction barge (the 250-ft Miller Bay). Because
Section 1 is too shallow for an ocean-class anchor-handling tug to
operate, a series of moored anchors will be first placed along this 6
km route, which the barge will use to winch long the route pulling the
vibro plow. The moorings will be placed using a shallow-draft river tug
(88-ft Dana Cruz) and the moorings set, and later retrieved, using a
derrick operating from the barge deck (the river tug would be too small
to handle the moorings involved).
The construction barge will continue to lay cable along Section 2
using the vibro plow, with the only difference being that in this
section the water is deep enough for the larger anchor-handling tug
(95-ft Daniel Foss), which will place and retrieve anchors that the
barge will use to winch along the cable route.
Cable-Lay Tools
The 2017 operations will use various cable-lay tools depending on
location and water depth. Cable along Sections 1 and 2 will be laid
using a vibro plow pulled by the winching barge. As the name suggests,
the tool has a narrow plowshare that vibrates into the seafloor
sediment. Maximum trenching/winching speed is less than 0.1 kilometer
per hour (kph) (<0.06 miles per hour [mph]).
Pre-trenching and cable lay along Section three will involve the
Ile de Batz pulling a heavy-duty sea plow. The plow has a submerged
weight of 25 tonnes (27.6 tons) and is pulled by the tow wire and the
cable fed through a cable depressor that pushes it into the trench.
Burial depth (generally set at 4 m) is controlled by adjusting the
front skids. The nominal tow speed is approximately 0.6 kph (0.4 mph).
Once cable-laying of the Oliktok segment is completed, exposed BUs
will be buried, and the entire system (main trunk and 6 branch lines)
will be tested. If any system faults are detected, fault repair (O&M)
would include retrieving a cable section, repairing it aboard the Ile
de Batz, and, if required, reburying the cable using a jetted ROV. The
planned ROV (ROVJET 400 series) is 5.8 m (19.0 ft) long and 3.4 m (11.2
ft) wide, and weighs 9.1 tonnes (10 tons), and has both a main and
forward jet tool capable of trenching to 2 m (6.6 ft) depth. The ROV
will also be used to bury any BUs not buried in 2016, and to place the
protective concrete mattresses over them.
Quintillion does not intend to conduct operations in the vicinity
of sea ice greater than 1/10 concentration.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see ``Proposed
Mitigation'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting'').
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
We have reviewed the Quintillion's species information, which
summarizes available information regarding status and trends,
distribution and habitat
[[Page 22102]]
preferences, behavior and life history, and auditory capabilities of
the potentially affected species, for accuracy and completeness and
refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the applications, as well as to
NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/),
instead of reprinting all of the information here. Additional general
information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS's Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/), in the National Marine Mammal Laboratory's (NMML)
Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) Web site (https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/nmml/cetacean/bwasp/). Table 1 lists all species with
expected potential for occurrence in the U.S. Beaufort, Bering, and
Chukchi seas and summarizes information related to the population or
stock, including potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For
taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR, 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, is considered in concert with known sources of ongoing
anthropogenic mortality to assess the population-level effects of the
anticipated mortality from a specific project (as described in NMFS's
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and
annual serious injury and mortality are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species and other threats. Species that
could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas but are not
expected to have reasonable potential to be harassed by the proposed
subsea cable-laying and maintenance activities are described briefly
but omitted from further analysis. These include extralimital species,
which are species that do not normally occur in a given area but for
which there are one or more occurrence records that are considered
beyond the normal range of the species. For status of species, we
provide information regarding U.S. regulatory status under the MMPA and
ESA.
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 area. NMFS's stock
abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that
stock.
Fifteen marine mammal species (with 18 managed stocks) are
considered to have the potential to co-occur with the proposed survey
activities. However, polar bear and walrus are managed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.
All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Alaska
SAR (Muto et al., 2016). All values presented in Table 1 are the most
recent available at the time of publication and are available in the
2015 SAR (Muto et al., 2016) and draft 2016 SARs (available online at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).
Table 1--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Survey Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock
abundance (CV,
ESA/MMPA status; Nmin, most Annual M/SI
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) \1\ recent PBR \3\
abundance
survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.......................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific. N 20,900 624 132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale....................... Balaena mysticetus..... Western Arctic........ Y 16,892 161 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale........................... Balaenoptera physalus.. Northeast Pacific..... Y NA NA 0.6
Minke whale......................... B. acutorostrata....... Alaska................ N NA NA 0
Humpback whale...................... Megaptera novaeangliae. Central North Pacific. Y 10,103 83 24
Western North Pacific. Y 1,107 3.0 2.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale........................ Delphinapterus leucas.. Beaufort Sea.......... N 39,258 649 166
Eastern Chukchi Sea... N 3,710 NA 57.4
Eastern Bering Sea.... N 19,186 NA 181
Killer whale........................ Orcinus orca........... Eastern North Pacific N 2,347 24 1
Alaska Resident.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise..................... Phocoena phocoena...... Bering Sea............ N 48,215 NA 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22103]]
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion.................... Eumetopias jubatus..... Western U.S........... Y 50,983 306 201
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal......................... Phoca hispida.......... Alaska................ Y NA NA 1,062
Spotted seal........................ Phoca largha........... Alaska................ N 460,268 11,730 5,267
Bearded seal........................ Erigathus barbatus..... Alaska................ Y NA NA 443
Ribbon seal......................... Histriophoca fasciata.. Alaska................ N 184,000 9,785 3.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered 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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case].
\3\ These 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). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section
later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity.
The ``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section will
consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed Mitigation''
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals
and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal
species or stocks.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal
hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
Marine Mammal Hearing--Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic
sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the
potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data
indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing
capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999;
Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007)
recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing
groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the
basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using
auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other
data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been
successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency cetaceans).
Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were
chosen based on the approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-
frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained.
The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated
below (note that these frequency ranges correspond to the range for the
composite group, with the entire range not necessarily reflecting the
capabilities of every species within that group):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 35
kiloHertz (kHz), with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8
kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to
less than 100 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz,
with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best
hearing between 2-48 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range.
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information.
Thirteen marine mammal species (eight cetacean and five pinniped
(one otariid and four phocid) species) have
[[Page 22104]]
the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey
activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the cetacean species that may
be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all
mysticete species), two are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all delphinid), and one is classified as high-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise).
The proposed Quintillion subsea cable-laying and maintenance
activities could adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by
exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity
area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift--an
increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran,
2015). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift include the
amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern, and energy
distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing threshold
shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the noise
exposure. The amount of threshold shift just after exposure is the
initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift eventually returns to
zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is a
temporary threshold shift (Southall et al., 2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced threshold shift
(TS). An animal can experience temporary threshold shift (TTS) or
permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to
days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific
frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of
hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can
be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity
might be reduced initially by only 6 decibels (dB) or reduced by 30
dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also
occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for
TTS.
The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role
in inducing auditory TS: Effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear
that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment
within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear,
displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and
post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output
(Southall et al., 2007). The amplitude, duration, frequency, temporal
pattern, and energy distribution of sound exposure all can affect the
amount of associated TS and the frequency range in which it occurs. As
amplitude and duration of sound exposure increase, so, generally, does
the amount of TS, along with the recovery time. For intermittent
sounds, less TS could occur than compared to a continuous exposure with
the same energy (some recovery could occur between intermittent
exposures depending on the duty cycle between sounds) (Kryter et al.,
1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one short but loud (higher sound
pressure level (SPL) sound exposure may induce the same impairment as
one longer but softer sound, which in turn may cause more impairment
than a series of several intermittent softer sounds with the same total
energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally, though TTS is temporary, prolonged
exposure to sounds strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term
exposure to sound levels well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS,
at least in terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of
Quintillion's subsea cable-laying operation, NMFS does not expect that
animals would experience levels high enough or durations long enough to
result in TS given that the noise levels from the operation are very
low.
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise (Finneran, 2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to
measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California
sea lions (Kastak, et al., 1999; Finneran, 2015).
Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing
it to airgun noise with a received SPL at 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1
micropascal ([mu]Pa), which corresponds to a sound exposure level of
164.5 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa\2\ s after integrating exposure. NMFS currently
uses the root-mean-square (rms) of received SPL at 180 dB and 190 dB
re: 1 [mu]Pa as the threshold above which PTS could occur for cetaceans
and pinnipeds, respectively. Because the airgun noise is a broadband
impulse, one cannot directly determine the equivalent of rms SPL from
the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative
conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys
(McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-to-
peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL
for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, and the received
levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher. This
is still above NMFS' current 180 dB rms re: 1 [mu]Pa threshold for
injury. However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor porpoises is lower
than other cetacean species empirically tested (Finneran, 2015).
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note,
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall
et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
Masking. In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not
high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark
et al,. 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human
sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals such as
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds
important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances,
marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being
severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize.
Therefore,
[[Page 22105]]
since noises generated from anchor handling, pre-trenching, and DP
thrusters are mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have
less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes
(toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more
likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially
important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also
affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and
thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al.,
2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Holt et al., 2009).
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects
both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent
science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased
by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times in terms of sound pressure
level) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of
these increases are from distant shipping. All anthropogenic noise
sources, such as those from vessel traffic and cable-laying while
operating anchor handling, contribute to the elevated ambient noise
levels, thus increasing potential for or severity of masking.
Behavioral Disturbance. Finally, exposure of marine mammals to
certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al.
1995), such as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of
blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/
increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response
or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping);
avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight
responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or
rookeries).
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et
al. 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises
(such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for
continuous noises (such as operating DP thrusters). No impulse noise
within the hearing range of marine mammals is expected from the
Quintillion subsea cable-laying operation. For the Quintillion subsea
cable-laying operation, only the 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold is
considered because only continuous noise sources would be generated.
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity,
duration, and context of the effects.
Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
Project activities that could potentially impact marine mammal
habitats include physical and acoustical impacts to prey resources
associated with cable-laying, maintenance, and repair activities.
Regarding the former, however, acoustical injury from thruster noise is
unlikely. Previous noise studies (e.g., Davis et al., 1998, Christian
et al., 2004) with cod, crab, and schooling fish found little or no
injury to adults, larvae, or eggs when exposed to impulsive noises
exceeding 220 dB. Continuous noise levels from ship thrusters are
generally below 180 dB, and do not create great enough pressures to
cause tissue or organ injury. Nedwell et al. (2003) measured noise
associated with cable trenching operations offshore of Wales, and found
that levels (178 dB at source) did not exceed those where significant
avoidance reactions of fish would occur.
Cable burial operations involve the use of plows or jets to cut
trenches in the seafloor sediment. Cable plows are generally used where
the substrate is cohesive enough to be ``cut'' and laid alongside the
trench long enough for the cable to be laid at depth. In less cohesive
substrates, where the sediment would immediately settle back into the
trench before the cable could be laid, jetting is used to scour a more
lasting furrow. The objective of both is to excavate a temporary trench
of sufficient depth to fully bury the cable (usually 1.5 to 2 m (4.9 to
6.6 ft)). The plow blade is 0.2 m (0.7 ft) wide producing a trench of
approximately the same width. Jetted trenches are somewhat wider
depending on the sediment type.
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and prey include: (1)
Crushing of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates with the plow blade,
plow skid, or ROV track; (2) dislodgement of benthic invertebrates onto
the surface where they may die; and (3) and the settlement of suspended
sediments away from the trench where they may clog gills or feeding
structures of sessile invertebrates or smother sensitive species (BERR
2008). However, the footprint of cable trenching is generally
restricted to a 2- to 3-m (7- to 10-ft) width (BERR, 2008), and the
displaced wedge or berm is expected to naturally backfill into the
trench. Jetting results in more suspension of sediments, which may take
days to settle during which currents may transport it well away (up to
several kilometers) from source. Suspended sand particles generally
settle within about 20 m (66 ft).
BERR (2008) critically reviewed the effect of offshore wind farm
construction, including laying of power and communication cables, on
the environment. Based on a rating of 1 to 10, they concluded that
sediment disturbance from plow operations rated the lowest at 1, with
jetting rating from 2 to 4, depending on substrate. As a comparison,
dredging rated the highest relative sediment disturbance.
However, with the exception of the 76-km (47-mi) Oliktok branch,
all cable planned for burial was buried in 2016, and any BU burial or
O&M activities conducted in 2017 will just be re-disturbing areas
previously disturbed.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is ``small'' 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 be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to noise sources generated during the proposed
subsea cable-laying and maintenance activities. Based on the nature of
the activity, Level A harassment is neither
[[Page 22106]]
anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. An evaluation was performed
using NMFS noise exposure guidance which confirms that no Level A takes
would occur (see below).
The death of a marine mammal is also a type of incidental take.
However, as described previously, no mortality is anticipated or
proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the
take is estimated.
Basis for Takes
Take estimates are based on average marine mammal density in the
project area multiplied by size of the area ensonified by received
noise levels exceed certain thresholds (i.e., Level A and/or Level B
harassment) from specific activities. This is the preferred method for
estimating instances of take for a project where the noise source is
constantly moving (not remaining at specific location for long
periods). For marine mammals whose density information is not
available, take calculation is based on qualitative information of
these species occurrence and presence and on prior observations within
the survey area.
Acoustic Thresholds
Under the NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance), dual criteria
are used to assess marine mammal auditory injury (Level A harassment)
as a result of noise exposure (NMFS 2016). The dual criteria under the
Guidance provide onset thresholds in instantaneous peak SPLs
(Lpk) as well as 24-hr cumulative sound exposure levels
(SELcum or LE) that could cause PTS) to marine
mammals of different hearing groups. The peak SPL is the highest
positive value of the noise field, log transformed to dB in reference
to 1 micropascal ([mu]Pa).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12MY17.004
where p(t) is acoustic pressure in pascal or micropascal, and Pref is
reference acoustic pressure equal to 1 [mu]Pa.
The cumulative SEL is the total sound exposure over the entire
duration of a given day's project underwater noise production.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12MY17.005
where p(t) is acoustic pressure in pascal or micropascal, Pref is
reference acoustic pressure equals to 1 [mu]Pa, t1 marks the
beginning of the time, and t2 the end of time.
For onset of Level B harassment, NMFS continues to use the root-
mean-square (rms) sound pressure level (SPLrms) 120 dB re 1
[mu]Pa as the received level from non-impulse sources (such as those
produced by machineries during anchor handling, pre-trenching, and
cable-laying with DP thruster and sea plow associated with the proposed
subsea cable-laying and maintenance) underwater. The SPLrms
for non-impulse sounds is the same as the sound exposure level
normalized in 1 sec, and is calculated by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12MY17.006
where p(t) is acoustic pressure in pascal or micropascal, Pref is
reference acoustic pressure equals to 1 [mu]Pa, t1 marks the
beginning of the time, and t2 the end of time. In the case
of a non-impulse noise, T is duration of noise exposure between
t1 and t2.
Table 2 summarizes the current NMFS marine mammal take criteria.
Table 2--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Non-explosive Sound Underwater
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds Behavioral thresholds
Hearing group -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.... Lpk,flat: 219 dB.. LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.... Lpk,flat: 230 dB.. LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans... Lpk,flat: 202 dB.. LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. Lrms,flat: 160 dB. Lrms,flat: 120 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Lpk,flat: 218 dB.. LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
(Underwater). LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
[[Page 22107]]
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Lpk,flat: 232 dB.. LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
(Underwater). LE,OW,24h: 203 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.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]Pa2s. 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.
Noise Sources and Ensonified Areas
The predominant noise source during previous cable-lay operations
at other locations has been the cavitation noise produced by thrusters
during dynamic positioning of the vessel (Tetra Tech 2013). Cavitation
is the random collapsing of bubbles produced by the blades. However,
Illingworth & Rodkin (I&R 2016) conducted sound source verification
(SSV) measurements of the Ile de Brehat while operating near Nome at
the beginning of the 2016 field season and found that the primary noise
source emanated from the drive propellers while towing the sea plow.
Resistant seafloor sediments resulted in a need to increase power
(resulting in increased cavitation) as compared to cable-lay operations
at other locations.
I&R (2016) determined that the distance to the NMFS Level B
harassment threshold 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous noise was
5.35 km (3.32 mi) when the Ile de Brehat was pulling the sea plow. It
is assumed that the same measurements apply for the sister ship Ile de
Batz that will pull the sea plow during cable-lay operations in the
offshore segment of the Oliktok branch.
In addition to sea plow operations (which includes pre-trenching),
cavitation noise potentially exceeding the NMFS Level B harassment
threshold of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous noise is expected
during anchor-handling operations.
Results from past measurements of cavitation noise associated with
anchor handling have varied greatly with distances to the 120-dB
isopleth ranging from a few kilometers to over 25 km (16 mi), depending
on the size of both the tug and the anchor, and the amount of power
needed to retrieve the anchor. Source levels for large (45 to 83 m (148
to 272 ft) in length) anchor-handling tugs during anchor-pulling
operations have been measured at been 181 and 207 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
(Laurinolli et al. 2005, Austin et al. 2013, LGL/JASCO/Greeneridge
2014). However, smaller (<35 m [<115 ft]) tugs produce underwater noise
levels <180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) when pulling (Richardson et al. 1995,
Blackwell and Greene 2003). Blackwell and Greene (2003) measured the
underwater noise levels from a tug maneuvering a large barge near the
Port of Anchorage and recorded maximum sound pressure levels equating
to 163.8 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) at 1-m source when the tug was pushing
the barge, which increased to 178.9 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) when thrusters
were additionally operated during docking maneuvers. Quintillion
intends to use the 27-m (88-ft) Dana Cruz and the 29-m (95-ft) Daniel
Foss tugs to handle anchors. In the absence of sound source data for
these smaller tugs it is assumed that each would have a source level of
178.9 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) based on Blackwell and Greene (2003), which
would imply a radius to threshold of about 8.45 km (5.25 mi) based on a
15 Log (R) spreading model.
During O&M activities (including burying BUs) the primary noise
source will be the vessel (Ile de Batz) thrusters when using dynamic
positioning to remain on station. There will be noise associated with
the ROV propulsion and jetting, but these are expected to be
subordinate to thruster noises. Various acoustical investigations of
thruster noise in the Atlantic Ocean have modeled distances to the 120-
dB isopleth with results ranging between 1.4 and 4.5 km (0.8 and 2.7
mi) (Samsung 2009, Deepwater Wind 2013, Tetra Tech 2013) for water
depths similar to those where Quintillion will be operating in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas. However, Hartin et al. (2011) physically
measured dynamic positioning noise from the 104-m (341-ft) Fugro
Synergy operating in the Chukchi Sea while it was using thrusters
(2,500 kW) more powerful than those used on the Ile de Brehat (1,500
kW). Measured dominant frequencies were 110 Hz to 140 Hz, and the
measured (90th percentile) radius to the 120-dB isopleth was 2.3 km
(1.4 mi). Because this radius is a measured value from Alaska Arctic
waters, it likely is a better approximation of expected sound levels
associated with thruster operation during O&M activities.
Other acoustical sources include the echo sounders, transceivers,
sonar, and transponders that will be used to continually reference the
water depth and the position of the plow and ROV that operate behind
the vessel. Based on actual field measurements or manufacturer-provided
values, some of this equipment produces noise levels exceeding the
vessel thrusters. However, this equipment is impulsive, producing
pulses every 1 to 3 seconds (sec), and the sound energy is focused
downward in very narrow conical beams. There is very little horizontal
propagation of the noise levels. Measured distances to the 160-dB
isopleth for echo sounders and acoustical beacons ranged between 26 and
44 m (85 and 144 ft) (Ireland et al., 2007, Reider et al., 2013). I&R
(2016) attempted to measure echo sounder and transponder sound levels
associated with the Ile de Brehat, but could not detect them, even at a
very close range to the ship. They assumed that this was due to the
downward focus and lack of horizontal spread of the sound beam.
As mentioned earlier, Quintillion's 2017 activities will include
installing cable on the remaining approximately 76 km (47 mi) of the
Oliktok branch cable. Quintillion will then test the system to identify
any faults. Until testing is complete, it is not possible to know how
much retrieval and reburial of cable will be necessary during O&M
activity in 2017. To account for this uncertainty, the acoustical
footprint (total ensonified area) for purposes of
[[Page 22108]]
this application was determined by conservatively assuming that
cavitation noise would occur along all remaining 76 km (47 mi) of
carry-over cable-lay operations (Oliktok branch), and 100 km (62 mi) of
potential O&M work in either the Bering or Chukchi seas. Table 3 lists
the area ensonified by underwater sound exceeding 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) associated with each activity.
Table 3--Estimated Distance of the Level B Harrassment Threshold (120 dB) for Each of Quintillion's Proposed
2017 Cable-Lay Activities and the Length of Route Over Which These Activities Would Occur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Route Ensonified
Operation Season Water body to 120-dB length area
(km) (km) (km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea plow (pre-trenching & cable- Summer.............. Beaufort........... 5.35 187 2,001
laying by Ile de Batz).
Anchor handling (in association Summer.............. Beaufort........... 8.45 16 270
of cable-laying by barges).
ROV (O&M)........................ Fall................ Bering & Chukchi... 2.30 100 460
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is assumed that the pre-trenching and cable-laying work in the
Beaufort Sea will occur only in the summer (July and August) with a
collective zone of influence (ZOI) of 2,271 km\2\. It is assumed that
the remaining O&M activities in the Bering and Chukchi seas (ZOI of 460
km\2\) would occur in the fall, although some burying of BUs and
equipment testing might occur in the summer if the Oliktok area is not
yet free of ice when the Ile de Batz arrives.
For Level A harassment zones, calculations were performed using
NMFS optional spreadsheet (NMFS 2016) for mobile source: Non-impulse
source with input from various sources listed above. The results show
that distances to the PTS isopleths for the five hearing groups from
various sources ranged from 0 to 4 m. Consequently, there are no Level
A concerns for this project.
Marine Mammal Densities
Density estimates for bowhead, gray, and beluga whales were derived
from aerial survey data collected in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas
during the 2011 to 2016 Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM)
program (Clarke et al., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, NMFS Unpubl. Data). The
proposed cable routes cross ASAMM survey blocks 3, 11, and 12 in the
Beaufort Sea, and blocks 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 in the Chukchi Sea.
Only data collected in these blocks were used to estimate densities for
bowhead and gray whales. Beluga densities were derived from ASAMM data
collected for depth zones between 36 and 50 m (118 and 164 ft) within
the Chukchi Sea between longitudes 157 [deg] and 169 [deg]W, and the
depth zones between 21 and 200 m (68.9 and 656.2 ft) in the Beaufort
Sea between longitudes 154 [deg] and 157 [deg]W. These depth zones
reflect the depths where most of the cable-lay will occur. Harbor
porpoise densities (Chukchi Sea only) are from Hartin et al. (2013),
and ringed seal densities from Aerts et al. (2014; Chukchi Sea) and
Moulton and Lawson (2002; Beaufort Sea). Spotted and bearded seal
densities in the Chukchi Sea are also from Aerts et al. (2014). Spotted
seal density in Beaufort Sea is based on Green and Negri (2005) and
Green et al. (2006, 2007) surveys during barging activity between West
Dock and Cape Simpson, and corrected using observations by Hauser et
al. (2008) and Lomac-McNair et al. (2014) in areas closer to Oliktok
(see below). Bearded seal density is estimated as 5 percent of ringed
seals, based on studies by Stirling et al. (1982) and Clarke et al.
(2013, 2014).
Too few sightings have been made in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas
for all other marine mammal species to develop credible density
estimates.
The density estimates for the seven species are presented in Table
4 (Chukchi and Bering seas) and Table 5 (Beaufort Sea) below. The
specific parameters used in deriving these estimates are provided in
the discussions that follow.
Table 4--Marine Mammal Densities (#/km\2\) in the Chukchi and Bering
Seas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Summer Fall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................................... 0.0035 0.0481
Gray whale...................................... 0.0760 0.0241
Beluga whale.................................... 0.0015 0.0090
Harbor porpoise................................. 0.0022 0.0021
Ringed seal..................................... 0.0645 0.0380
Spotted seal.................................... 0.0645 0.0380
Bearded seal.................................... 0.0630 0.0440
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Marine Mammal Densities (#/km\2\) in the Beaufort Sea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Summer Fall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................................... 0.1239 0.1285
Gray whale...................................... 0.0097 0.0034
Beluga whale.................................... 0.0778 0.0316
Ringed seal..................................... 0.3547 0.2510
Spotted seal.................................... 0.1171 0.0837
Bearded seal.................................... 0.0177 0.0125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead Whale: The summer density estimate for bowhead whales was
derived from June, July, and August aerial survey data collected in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the 2011 to 2016 ASAMM program (Clarke
et al., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, NMFS Unpubl. Data). Fall data were
collected during September and October. Data only from the survey
blocks that will be crossed by the proposed cable route were used in
the calculations, and included blocks 3, 11, and 12 in the Beaufort Sea
and 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 in the Chukchi Sea. ASAMM surveys did not
extend more than about 25 km (15.5 mi) south of Point Hope, and there
are no other systematic survey data for bowhead whales south of the
point. During these three years, 478 bowhead whales were recorded in
the three Beaufort Sea blocks during 23,955 km (14,885 mi) of summer
survey effort (0.0200/km), and 684 whales during 33,056 km (20,054 mi)
of fall effort (0.0207/km). In the five Chukchi Sea survey blocks, 23
bowheads were recorded during 41,373 km (25,708 mi) of summer effort
(0.0006/km), and 302 during 39,015 km (24,243 mi) of fall survey
(0.0077/km). Applying an effective strip half-width (ESW) of 1.15
(Ferguson and Clarke 2013), and a 0.07 correction factor for whales
missed during the surveys, results in corrected densities of 0.1239
(Beaufort summer), 0.1285 (Beaufort fall), 0.0035 (Chukchi summer), and
0.0481 (Chukchi fall) whales per km\2\ (Table 4 and Table 5).
Gray Whale: Gray whale density estimates were derived from the same
ASAMM transect data used to determine bowhead whale densities. During
the four years of aerial survey, 39 gray whales were recorded in the
three Beaufort Sea blocks during 23,955 km (14,885 mi) of summer survey
effort (0.0016/km), and 19 gray whales during 33,056 km (20,054 mi) of
fall effort (0.0006/km). In the five Chukchi Sea survey blocks, 529
gray whales were recorded during 41,373 km (25,708 mi)
[[Page 22109]]
of summer effort (0.0128/km), and 158 during 39,015 km (24,243 mi) of
fall survey (0.0040/km). Applying an effective strip half-width (ESW)
of 1.201 (Ferguson and Clarke 2013), and a correction factor of 0.07,
results in corrected densities of 0.0097 (Beaufort summer), 0.0034
(Beaufort fall), 0.0760 (Chukchi summer), and 0.0241 (Chukchi fall)
whales per km\2\ (Table 4 and Table 5).
Beluga Whale: Beluga whale density estimates were derived from the
ASAMM transect data collected from 2011 to 2016 (Clarke et al., 2012,
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, NMFS Unpubl. Data). During summer aerial
surveys (June-August), there were 376 beluga whale observed along 6,786
km (4,217 mi) of transect in waters between 21 to 200 m (13 to 124 ft)
deep and between longitudes 154 [deg]W and 157 [deg]W. This equates to
0.0554 whales/km of trackline and a corrected density of 0.0778 whales
per km\2\, assuming an ESW of 0.614 km and a 0.58 correction factor.
Fall density estimates (September-October) for this region were based
on 239 beluga whales seen along 10,632 km (6,606 mi) of transect. This
equates to 0.0225 whales/km of trackline and a corrected density of
0.0316 whales per km\2\, assuming an ESW of 0.614 km and a 0.58
correction factor.
During summer aerial surveys (June-August), there were 40 beluga
whale observed along 38,347 km (23,828 mi) of transect in waters less
than 36 to 50 m (22 to 31 ft) deep and between longitudes 157 [deg]W
and 169 [deg]W. This equates to 0.0010 whales/km of trackline and a
corrected density of 0.0015 whales per km\2\, assuming an ESW of 0.614
km and a 0.58 correction factor. Calculated fall beluga densities for
the same region was based on 237 beluga whales seen during 36,816 km
(22,876 mi) of transect. This equates to 0.0064 whales/km and a
corrected density of 0.0090 whales per km\2\, again assuming an ESW of
0.614 km and a 0.58 correction factor.
Harbor Porpoise: Although harbor porpoise are known to occur in low
numbers in the Chukchi Sea (Aerts et al., 2014), no harbor porpoise
were positively identified during Chukchi Offshore Monitoring in
Drilling Area (COMIDA) and ASAMM aerial surveys conducted in the
Chukchi Sea from 2006 to 2013 (Clarke et al., 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014).
A few small unidentified cetaceans that were observed may have been
harbor porpoise. Hartin et al. (2013) conducted vessel-based surveys in
the Chukchi Sea while monitoring oil and gas activities between 2006
and 2010 and recorded several harbor porpoises throughout the summer
and early fall. Vessel-based surveys may be more conducive to sighting
these small, cryptic porpoise than the aerial-based COMIDA/ASAMM
surveys. The Hartin et al. (2013) three-year average summer densities
(0.0022/km\2\) and fall densities (0.0021/km\2\) were very similar, and
are included in Table 4.
Ringed and Spotted Seals: Aerts et al. (2014) conducted a marine
mammal monitoring program in the northeastern Chukchi Sea in
association with oil and gas exploration activities between 2008 and
2013. For sightings of either ringed or spotted seals, the highest
summer density was 0.127 seals/km\2\ (2008) and the highest fall
density was 0.076 seals/km\2\ (2013). Where seals could be identified
to species, they found the ratio of ringed to spotted seals to be 2:1.
However, monitoring the cable-lay activity in 2016 showed a nearly 1:1
ratio for ringed and spotted seals in all Bering and Chukchi seas, with
the exception of Kotzebue where high numbers of spotted seals were
observed. Kotzebue is a fall concentration for feeding spotted seals.
Because the cable-lay work at Kotzebue is complete, and any 2017 work
there is either unlikely or would be brief, Kotzebue nearshore
densities are not taken into special account in the overall estimated
spotted seal density for the Bering and Chukchi seas. The 1:1 ratio
observed in 2016 is taken into consideration by splitting the above
Aerts et al. (2014) densities equally for each species: 0.064 seals/
km\2\ for summer and 0.038 seals/km\2\ for fall. These are the
densities used in the exposure calculations (Table 4) to represent
ringed and spotted seal densities for both the northern Bering and
Chukchi seas.
Moulton and Lawson (2002) conducted summer shipboard-based surveys
for pinnipeds along the nearshore Alaska Beaufort Sea coast, while the
Kingsley (1986) conducted surveys here along the ice margin
representing fall conditions. The ringed seal results from these
surveys were used in the exposure estimates (Table 4). Neither survey
provided a good estimate of spotted seal densities. Green and Negri
(2005) and Green et al. (2006, 2007) recorded pinnipeds during barging
activity between West Dock and Cape Simpson, and found high numbers of
ringed seal in Harrison Bay, and peaks in spotted seal numbers off the
Colville River delta where a haulout site is located. Approximately 5
percent of all phocid sightings recorded by Green and Negri (2005) and
Green et al. (2006, 2007) were spotted seals, which provide an estimate
of the proportion of ringed seals versus spotted seals in the Colville
River delta and Harrison Bay, both areas relatively close to the
proposed Oliktok branch line. However, monitoring conducted nearer to
Oliktok Point by Hauser et al. (2008) and Lomac-McNair et al. (2014)
indicated that spotted seals are more commonly observed in waters
nearest shore than ringed seals. While only a small portion of the
Oliktok branch that remains to be installed occurs in waters within 5
km (3 mi) of shore, much of the work within 5 km (3 mi) will take more
days of activity to complete than offshore work and, hence, could
result in a disproportionately higher number of spotted seal sightings
than existing survey data might predict. Therefore, as a conservative
measure, the ringed seal density data from Moulton and Lawson (2002)
and Kingsley (1986) is applied to both species, especially given the
2016 results indicate that outside Kotzebue, observers were reporting a
nearly 3:1 ratio of both species.
Bearded Seal: The most representative estimates of summer and fall
density of bearded seals in the northern Bering and Chukchi seas come
from Aerts et al. (2014) monitoring program that ran from 2008 to 2013
in the northeastern Chukchi Sea. During this period the highest summer
estimate was 0.063 seals/km\2\ (2013) and the highest fall estimate was
0.044 seals/km\2\ (2010). These are the values that were used in
developing exposure estimates for this species for the northern Bering
and Chukchi seas cable-lay areas (Table 4).
There are no accurate density estimates for bearded seals in the
Beaufort Sea based on survey data. However, Stirling et al. (1982)
noted that the proportion of eastern Beaufort Sea bearded seals is 5
percent that of ringed seals. Further, Clarke et al. (2013, 2014)
recorded 82 bearded seals in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during
the 2012 and 2013 ASAMM surveys, which represented 5.1 percent of all
their ringed seal and small unidentified pinniped sightings (1,586).
Bengtson et al. (2005) noted a similar ratio (6 percent) during spring
surveys of ice seals in the Chukchi Sea. Therefore, the density values
in Table 3 were determined by multiplying ringed seal density from
Moulton and Lawson (2002) and Kingsley (1986) by 5 percent.
Marine Mammal Take Calculations
As stated earlier in the document, ensonified distances to Level A
harassment from various sources ranged from 0 to 4 m for all marine
mammal hearing groups. It's highly unlikely that an animal will reach
to this close distance to the vessel. Therefore, we
[[Page 22110]]
consider there is no concern for level A take.
The estimated potential harassment take of local marine mammals by
the project was determined by multiplying the seasonal animal densities
in Table 4 and Table 5 with the maximum seasonal area that would be
ensonified by the estimated operational underwater noise greater than
120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) during each activity by each season (shown in
Table 3). The resulting exposure calculations are provided in Table 6.
For marine mammals for which reliable density estimates do not
exist in the project area (i.e., humpback whale, fin whale, minke
whale, killer whale, harbor porpoise, Steller sea lion, and ribbon
seal) due to low abundance, potential exposures are based on recorded
observations of these species in the recent past as discussed earlier
in this document (Hashagen et al., 2009; Green and Negri, 2005; Green
et al., 2007) and from Quintillion's Marine Mammal Monitoring Report
during its 2016 subsea cable-laying operations (Quintillion 2017). The
take numbers for harbor porpoise are adjusted upwards to account for
group size.
Table 6--Estimated and Requested Takes of Marine Mammal by Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaufort Chukchi & Total
Species summer Bering fall requested Abundance Percentage of
exposures exposure take stock %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................... 292 22 314 16,892 1.87
Gray whale...................... 23 11 34 20,990 0.16
Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea)..... 184 4 188 39,258 0.48
Beluga whale (E. Chukchi Sea)... 184 4 188 3,710 5.07
Beluga whale (E. Bering Sea).... 184 4 188 19,186 0.98
Harbor porpoise................. 0 15 15 48,215 0.03
Ringed seal..................... 838 17 855 170,000 0.50
Spotted seal.................... 279 17 296 460,268 0.06
Bearded seal.................... 42 20 62 299,174 0.02
Humpback whale.................. 0 60 60 10,103 0.59
Fin whale....................... 0 15 15 5,700 0.26
Minke whale..................... 0 15 15 2,020 0.74
Killer whale.................... 0 5 5 2,347 1.07
Ribbon seal..................... 0 5 5 18,400 0.21
Steller sea lion................ 0 8 8 50,983 0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Proposed Mitigation section. Last, the information from this section
and the Proposed Mitigation section is analyzed to determine whether
the necessary findings may be made in the Unmitigable Adverse Impact
Analysis and Determination section.
Underwater noise generated from the Quintillion's proposed cable-
laying and O&M activities could affect subsistence uses of marine
mammals by causing the animals to avoid the hunting areas and making
the animals more difficult to approach by the hunters.
The cable-lay activities that might occur in 2017 as a result of
repair work could occur within the marine subsistence areas used by the
villages of Nome, Wales, Kotzebue, Little Diomede, Kivalina, Point
Hope, Wainwright, Barrow, and Nuiqsut. Subsistence use various
considerably by season and location. Seven of the villages hunt bowhead
whales (Suydam and George 2004). The small villages of Wales, Little
Diomedes, and Kivalina take a bowhead whale about once every five
years. Point Hope and Nuiqsut each harvest three to four whales
annually, and Wainwright five to six. Harvest from Barrow is far the
highest with about 25 whales taken each year generally split between
spring and fall hunts. Point Hope and Wainwright harvest occurs largely
during the spring hunt, and Nuiqsut's during the fall. Nuiqsut whalers
base from Cross Island, 70 km (44 mi) east of Oliktok.
Beluga are also annually harvested by the villages noted above.
Beluga harvest is most important to Point Hope. For example, the
village harvested 84 beluga whales during the spring of 2012, and
averaged 31 whales a year from 1987 to 2006 (Frost and Suydam, 2010).
Beluga are also important to Wainwright villages. They harvested 34
beluga whales in 2012, and averaged 11 annually from 1987 to 2006
(Frost and Suydam, 2010). All the other villages (Nome, Kotzebue,
Wales, Kivalina, Little Diomede, and Barrow) averaged less than 10
whales per year (Frost and Suydam, 2010).
All villages use seals to one degree or another as well. Ringed
seal harvest mostly occurs in the winter and spring when they are
hauled out on ice near leads or at breathing holes. Bearded seals are
taken from boats during the early summer as they migrate northward in
the Chukchi Sea and eastward in the Beaufort Sea.
Bearded seals are a staple for villages like Kotzebue and Kivalina
that have limited access to bowhead and beluga whales (Georgette and
Loon, 1993). Thetis Island, located just off the Colville River delta,
is an important base from which villagers from Nuiqsut hunt bearded
seals each summer after ice breakup.
Spotted seals are an important summer resource for Wainwright and
Nuiqsut, but other villages will avoid them because the meat is less
appealing than other available marine mammals.
The proposed cable-lay activity will occur in the summer after the
spring bowhead and beluga whale hunts have ended, and will avoid the
ice period when ringed seals are harvested. The Oliktok branch will
pass within 4 km (2 mi) of Thetis Island, but the actual laying of
cable along that branch near the island should occur after the bearded
seal hunt is over.
Quintillion states that it will work closely with the AEWC, the
Alaska Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC), the Ice Seal Committee (ISC), and
the NSB to minimize any effects cable-lay activities might have on
subsistence harvest (see below).
[[Page 22111]]
Proposed Mitigation
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 such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such 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 such 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 balance two primary factors. These are: (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--which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that
the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of
effective implementation, 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.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
The primary purpose of these mitigation measures is to detect
marine mammals and avoid vessel interactions during the pre- and post-
cable-laying and O&M activities. Due to the nature of the activities,
the vessel will not be able to engage in direction alteration during
cable-laying operations. However, since the cable-laying vessel will be
moving at a slow speed of 600 meter/hour (0.37 mile per hour or 0.32
knot) during cable-laying operations, it is highly unlikely that the
cable vessel would have physical interaction with marine mammals. For
Quintillion's proposed subsea cable-laying project, NMFS is requiring
Quintillion to implement the following mitigation measures to minimize
the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity as a
result of its planned activities.
(a) Vessel Movement Mitigation during Pre- and Post-cable-laying
Activities:
When the cable-lay fleet is traveling in Alaskan waters to and from
the project area (before and after completion of cable-laying or O&M
operations), the fleet vessels would:
Not approach concentrations or groups of whales (an
aggregation of 6 or more whales) within 1.6 km (1 mi) by all vessels
under the direction of Quintillion;
Take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction
with any bowhead whales observed within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a vessel; and
Reduce speed to less than 5 knots when visibility drops,
to avoid the likelihood of collision with whales. The normal vessel
travel speeds when laying cable is well less than 5 knots.
Mitigation for Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals or Plan of
Cooperation
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) further require IHA applicants
for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of
Cooperation 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 plan of cooperation;
A schedule for meeting with the affected subsistence
communities to discuss proposed activities and to resolve potential
conflicts regarding any aspects of either the operation or the plan of
cooperation;
A description of what measures the applicant has taken
and/or will take to ensure that proposed 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.
Quintillion has prepared a Plan of Cooperation (POC), which was
developed by identifying and evaluating any potential effects the
proposed cable-laying operation might have on seasonal abundance that
is relied upon for subsistence use.
Specifically, the vessels that Quintillion will use will
participate in the Automatic Identification System (AIS) vessel-
tracking system allowing the vessel to be tracked and located in real
time via the Marine Exchange of Alaska (MEA). Quintillion will sponsor
memberships in the MEA such that local subsistence groups can monitor
Quintillion vessel movements.
In addition, Quintillion will distribute a daily activity report by
email to all interested parties. Daily reports will include vessel
activity, location, subsistence information, and any potential hazards.
Quintillion project vessels will monitor local marine VHF channels
as requested for local traffic and will use log books to assist in the
standardization of record keeping.
A copy of the POC can be viewed on the Internet at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm.
In addition, Quintillion shall monitor the positions of all of its
vessels and will schedule timing and location of cable-laying segments
to avoid any areas where subsistence activity is normally planned.
For vessels transiting to and from Quintillion's project area,
Quintillion shall implement the following measures:
(A) Vessels transiting in the Beaufort Sea east of Bullen Point to
the Canadian border shall remain at least 5 miles offshore during
transit along the coast, provided ice and sea conditions allow. During
transit in the Chukchi Sea, vessels shall remain as far offshore as
weather and ice conditions allow, and at all times at least 5 miles
offshore.
(B) From August 31 to October 31, transiting vessels in the Chukchi
Sea or Beaufort Sea shall remain at least 20 miles offshore of the
coast of Alaska from Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on the
east side of Smith Bay in the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an
emergency that threatens the safety of the vessel or crew prevents
compliance with this requirement. This condition shall not apply to
vessels actively engaged in transit to or from a coastal community to
conduct crew changes or logistical support operations.
(C) Vessels shall be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no
physical contact with whales occurs, and to make any other potential
conflicts with bowheads or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds shall be
less than 10 knots when within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of feeding
whales or whale aggregations (6 or more whales in a group).
[[Page 22112]]
(D) If any vessel inadvertently approaches within 1.6 kilometers (1
mile) of observed bowhead whales, except when providing emergency
assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the vessel
operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential
interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the
following actions, as appropriate:
Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 900 feet
of the whale(s);
Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid
separating members of a group of whales from other members of the
group;
Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make
multiple changes in direction; and
Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s)
to ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are
engaged.
(E) Quintillion shall complete operations in time to ensure that
vessels associated with the project complete transit through the Bering
Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude no later than
November 15, 2017. Any vessel that encounters weather or ice that will
prevent compliance with this date shall coordinate its transit through
the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude with
local subsistence communities.
(F) Quintillion vessels shall, weather and ice permitting, transit
east of St. Lawrence Island and no closer than 10 miles from the shore
of St. Lawrence Island.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed 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.
Proposed 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
proposed 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.
Monitoring Measures
Monitoring will provide information on the numbers of marine
mammals affected by the subsea cable-laying and O&M operation and
facilitate real-time mitigation to prevent injury of marine mammals by
vessel traffic. These goals will be accomplished in the Bering,
Chukchi, and Beaufort seas during 2017 by conducting vessel-based
monitoring to document marine mammal presence and distribution in the
vicinity of the operation area.
Visual monitoring by protected species observers (PSO) during
subsea cable-laying and O&M operations, and periods when the operation
is not occurring, will provide information on the numbers of marine
mammals potentially affected by the activity. Vessel-based PSOs onboard
the vessels will record the numbers and species of marine mammals
observed in the area and any observable reaction of marine mammals to
the cable-laying operation in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas.
Vessel-Based Protected Species Observers
Vessel-based visual monitoring for marine mammals shall be
conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs throughout the period of subsea cable-
laying and O&M activities. PSOs shall be stationed aboard the cable-
laying vessel throughout the duration of the subsea cable-laying and
O&M operations.
A sufficient number of PSOs would be required onboard each survey
vessel to meet the following criteria:
100 percent monitoring coverage during all periods of
cable-laying and O&M operations in daylight;
Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and
Maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
PSO teams will consist of Inupiat observers and experienced field
biologists. Each vessel will have an experienced field crew leader to
supervise the PSO team. The total number of PSOs may decrease later in
the season as the duration of daylight decreases.
(1) PSOs Qualification and Training
Lead PSOs and most PSOs will be individuals with experience as
observers during marine mammal monitoring projects in Alaska or other
offshore areas in recent years. New or inexperienced PSOs would be
paired with an experienced PSO or experienced field biologist so that
the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording is kept
consistent.
Resumes for candidate PSOs will be provided to NMFS for review and
acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers would be
experienced in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the
area. All observers will complete an observer training course designed
to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection
procedures.
(2) Establishing Zone of Influence
A PSO would establish a ZOI where the received level is 120 dB
during Qunitillion's subsea cable-laying and O&M operations and conduct
marine mammal monitoring during the operation. The measured 120 dB ZOI
is 5.35 km from the cable-laying vessel.
[[Page 22113]]
(3) Marine Mammal Observation Protocol
PSOs shall watch for marine mammals from the best available vantage
point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge. PSOs shall scan
systematically with the unaided eye and 7 x 50 reticle binoculars, and
night-vision and infra-red equipment when needed. Personnel on the
bridge shall assist the marine mammal observer(s) in watching for
marine mammals; however, bridge crew observations will not be used in
lieu of PSO observation efforts.
Monitoring shall consist of recording of the following information:
1. The species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if
determinable), the general behavioral activity, heading (if
consistent), bearing and distance from vessel, sighting cue, behavioral
pace, and apparent reaction of all marine mammals seen near the vessel
(e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.);
2. The time, location, heading, speed, and activity of the vessel,
along with sea state, visibility, cloud cover and sun glare at (I) any
time a marine mammal is sighted, (II) at the start and end of each
watch, and (III) during a watch (whenever there is a change in one or
more variable);
3. The identification of all vessels that are visible within 5 km
of the vessel from which observation is conducted whenever a marine
mammal is sighted and the time observed;
4. Any identifiable marine mammal behavioral response (sighting
data should be collected in a manner that will not detract from the
PSO's ability to detect marine mammals);
5. Any adjustments made to operating procedures; and
6. Visibility during observation periods so that total estimates of
take can be corrected accordingly.
Distances to nearby marine mammals will be estimated with
binoculars (7 x 50 binoculars) containing a reticle to measure the
vertical angle of the line of sight to the animal relative to the
horizon. Observers may use a laser rangefinder to test and improve
their abilities for visually estimating distances to objects in the
water. Quintillion shall use the best available technology to improve
detection capability during periods of fog and other types of inclement
weather. Such technology might include night-vision goggles or
binoculars as well as other instruments that incorporate infrared
technology.
PSOs shall understand the importance of classifying marine mammals
as ``unknown'' or ``unidentified'' if they cannot identify the animals
to species with confidence. In those cases, they shall note any
information that might aid in the identification of the marine mammal
sighted. For example, for an unidentified mysticete whale, the
observers should record whether the animal had a dorsal fin. Additional
details about unidentified marine mammal sightings, such as ``blow
only,'' ``mysticete with (or without) a dorsal fin,'' ``seal splash,''
etc., shall be recorded.
Reporting Measures
A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to the
Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 days after the
end of Quintillion's subsea cable-laying and O&M operations in the
Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The report will describe in detail:
1. Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the project period,
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and
detectability of marine mammals);
2. Summaries that represent an initial level of interpretation of
the efficacy, measurements, and observations;
3. Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers,
and fog/glare);
4. Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine
mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
5. Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with uncertainty
expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a minimum-maximum,
posterior probability distribution, or another applicable method, with
the exact approach to be selected based on the sampling method and data
available; and
6. A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual
estimated takes.
Quintillion shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report
within 90 days of the conclusion of the subsea cable-laying and O&M
activities or within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, whichever
comes first. The draft report shall be subject to review and comment by
NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the report
prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report will be considered the
final report for this activity under this Authorization if NMFS has not
provided comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the
draft report.
Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA,
such as a serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear
interaction, and/or entanglement), Quintillion will immediately cease
the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report would
include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Name and type of vessel involved;
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Quintillion
to determine the necessary measures to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Quintillion would
not be able to resume its activities until notified by NMFS via letter,
email, or telephone.
In the event that Quintillion discovers a dead marine mammal, and
the lead PSO determines that the cause of the death is unknown and the
death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of
decomposition as described in the next paragraph), Quintillion would
immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska
Stranding Hotline. The report would include the same information
identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work
with Quintillion to
[[Page 22114]]
determine whether modifications in the activities would be appropriate.
In the event that Quintillion discovers a dead marine mammal, and
the lead PSO determines that the death is not associated with or
related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously
wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or
scavenger damage), Quintillion would report the incident to the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline, within 24 hours of the discovery.
Quintillion would provide photographs or video footage (if available)
or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the
Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Quintillion can continue its
operations under such a case.
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
peer review panel 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 convened an independent peer review panel to review
Quintillion's 4MP for the proposed subsea cable-laying and O&M
operations in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The panel met via
web conference in late March 2017, and will provide comments to NMFS in
April 2016.
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., population-
level 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' 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, this introductory discussion of our analyses
applies to all the species listed in Table 6, given that the
anticipated effects of Quintillion's subsea cable-laying and O&M
operations on marine mammals (taking into account the proposed
mitigation) are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where
there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups
of species, 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 separately in the
analysis below.
No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of
Quintillion's subsea cable-laying and O&M operations, and none are
authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur
hearing impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological
effects. The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to
be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of
brief startling reaction and/or temporary vacating the area.
Any effects on marine mammals are generally expected to be
restricted to avoidance of a limited area around Quintillion's proposed
activities and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA
definition of ``Level B harassment.'' Mitigation measures, such as
controlled vessel speed and dedicated marine mammal observers, will
ensure that takes are within the level being analyzed. In all cases,
the effects are expected to be short-term, with no lasting biological
consequence.
Of the 13 marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed
cable-laying area, bowhead, humpback, fin whales, ringed and bearded
seals, and Steller sea lion are listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA. These species are also designated as ``depleted'' under
the MMPA. None of the other species that may occur in the project area
are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or designated as
depleted under the MMPA.
The project area of the Quintillion's proposed activities is within
areas that have been identified as biologically important areas (BIAs)
for feeding for the gray and bowhead whales and for reproduction for
gray whale during the summer and fall months (Clarke et al., 2015). In
addition, the coastal Beaufort Sea also serves as a migratory corridor
during bowhead whale spring migration, as well as for their feeding and
breeding activities. Additionally, the coastal area of Chukchi and
Beaufort seas also serve as BIAs for beluga whales for their feeding
and migration. However, the Quintillion's proposed cable-laying and O&M
operations would briefly transit through the area in a slow speed (600
meters per hour). As discussed earlier, the Level B behavioral
harassment on marine mammals from the proposed activity is expected to
be brief startling reaction and temporary vacating of the area. There
are no long-term or biologically significant impacts to marine mammals
expected from the proposed subsea cable-laying activity.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary 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 is anticipated or authorized;
No injury or hearing impairment is anticipated or
authorized;
Only Level B behavioral disturbances by exposed marine
mammals are likely;
The levels and duration of marine mammals exposure to
noises are low and brief; and
Only a small fraction of marine mammal populations is
expected to be affected.
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 proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
[[Page 22115]]
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, 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.
The requested takes represent less than 5.07 percent of all
populations or stocks potentially impacted (see Table 6 in this
document). These take estimates represent the percentage of each
species or stock that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment.
The numbers of marine mammals estimated to be taken are small
proportions of the total populations of the affected species or stocks.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily 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.
As discussed earlier in this document, Quintillion worked with the
cable-landing communities, tribal/subsistence organizations, and co-
management groups to develop mutually agreed monitoring and mitigation
measures. These measures rely strongly on effective communication
between operations and communities to ensure that Quintillion's
proposed subsea cable-laying and O&M operations would not have
unmitigable adverse impact to subsistence use of marine mammals in the
affected areas. In addition, the proposed IHA would require Quintillion
to implement time and area limitations and vessel speed restrictions
when passing through certain subsistence areas and/or encountering
bowhead whales.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will
not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from
Quintillion's proposed activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 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 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 with our ESA Interagency Cooperation Division
whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened
species.
Within the project area, the bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are
listed as endangered and the ringed and bearded seals and Steller sea
lion are listed as threatened under the ESA. NMFS' Permits and
Conservation Division has initiated consultation with staff in NMFS'
Alaska Region Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA
on the issuance of an IHA to Quintillion under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a
determination on the issuance of an IHA.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to Quintillion for conducting subsea cable-laying and
operation and maintenance activities, provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained
in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Authorization is valid from June 15, 2017, through November
15, 2017.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with
subsea cable-laying and subsea cables operation and maintenance (O&M)
related activities in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The
specific areas where Quintillion's operations will be conducted are
within the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, Alaska, as shown in
Figure 1-1 of Quintillion's IHA application.
3. (a) The species authorized taking by Level B harassment and in
the numbers shown in Table 6 are: Beluga whales (Delphinapterus
leucas); bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus); gray whales (Eschrichtius
robustus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whale
(Balaenoptera physalus), minke whale (B. acutorostrata), killer whale,
(Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), ringed seal (Phoca
hispida), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), spotted seals (Phoca
largha), ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata), and Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus).
(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the
following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
Subsea cable-laying and subsea cable O&M activities; and
Vessel activities related to the above activities.
4. Prohibitions
(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the
species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in
Table 6 of this notice. The taking by death, injury of these species or
the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of
marine mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or exempted
under the MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the
required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition
7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this
Authorization.
5. Mitigation
(a) Vessel Movement Mitigation
(i) When the cable-lay fleet is traveling in Alaskan waters to and
from the project area (before and after completion of cable-laying),
the fleet vessels would:
(A) Not approach within 1.6 km (1 m) distance from concentrations
or groups of whales (aggregation of six or more
[[Page 22116]]
whales) by all vessels under the direction of Quintillion
(B) Take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with
the bowhead whales observed within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a vessel.
(C) Reduce speed to less than 5 knots when weather conditions
require, such as when visibility drops, to avoid the likelihood of
collision with whales. The normal vessel travel speeds when laying
cable is well less than 5 knots; however vessels laying cable cannot
change course and cable-laying operations will not cease until the end
of cable is reached.
(b) Mitigation Measures for Subsistence Activities
(i) Quintillion shall participate in the Automatic Identification
System (AIS) vessel-tracking system to allow the vessel to be tracked
and located in real time via the Marine Exchange of Alaska (MEA).
(ii) Quintillion will sponsor memberships in the MEA such that
local subsistence groups can monitor Quintillion vessel movements.
(iii) Quintillion will distribute a daily activity report by email
to all interested parties. Daily reports will include vessel activity,
location, subsistence information, and any potential hazards.
(iv) Quintillion project vessels will monitor local marine VHF
channels as requested for local traffic and will use log books to
assist in the standardization of record keeping.
(v) Quintillion shall monitor the positions of all of its vessels
and will schedule timing and location of cable-laying segments to avoid
any areas where subsistence activity is normally planned.
(vi) Barge and ship transiting to and from the project area:
(A) Vessels transiting in the Beaufort Sea east of Bullen Point to
the Canadian border shall remain at least 5 miles offshore during
transit along the coast, provided ice and sea conditions allow. During
transit in the Chukchi Sea, vessels shall remain as far offshore as
weather and ice conditions allow, and at all times at least 5 miles
offshore.
(B) From August 31 to October 31, transiting vessels in the Chukchi
Sea or Beaufort Sea shall remain at least 20 miles offshore of the
coast of Alaska from Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on the
east side of Smith Bay in the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an
emergency that threatens the safety of the vessel or crew prevents
compliance with this requirement. This condition shall not apply to
vessels actively engaged in transit to or from a coastal community to
conduct crew changes or logistical support operations.
(C) Vessels shall be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no
physical contact with whales occurs, and to make any other potential
conflicts with bowheads or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds shall be
less than 10 knots when within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of feeding
whales or whale aggregations (6 or more whales in a group).
(D) If any vessel inadvertently approaches within 1.6 kilometers (1
mile) of observed bowhead whales, except when providing emergency
assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the vessel
operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential
interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the
following actions, as appropriate:
Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 900 feet
of the whale(s);
Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid
separating members of a group of whales from other members of the
group;
Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make
multiple changes in direction; and
Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s)
to ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are
engaged.
(vii) Quintillion shall complete operations in time to ensure that
vessels associated with the project complete transit through the Bering
Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude no later than
November 15, 2017. Any vessel that encounters weather or ice that will
prevent compliance with this date shall coordinate its transit through
the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude with
local subsistence communities. Quintillion vessels shall, weather and
ice permitting, transit east of St. Lawrence Island and no closer than
10 miles from the shore of St. Lawrence Island.
6. Monitoring
(a) Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring
(i) Vessel-based visual monitoring for marine mammals shall be
conducted by NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs)
throughout the period of cable-laying and O&M activities.
(ii) PSOs shall be stationed aboard the cable-laying vessel
throughout the duration of the subsea cable-laying and O&M operations.
(iii) A sufficient number of PSOs shall be onboard the survey
vessel to meet the following criteria:
(A) 100 percent monitoring coverage during all periods of cable-
laying operations in daylight;
(B) Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO, with a minimum
1-hour break between shifts; and
(C) Maximum of 12 hours of watch time in any 24-hour period per
PSO.
(iv) The vessel-based marine mammal monitoring shall provide the
basis for real-time mitigation measures as described in 5(b) above.
(b) PSOs Qualification and Training
(i) Lead PSOs and most PSOs will be individuals with experience as
observers during marine mammal monitoring projects in Alaska or other
offshore areas in recent years.
(ii) New or inexperienced PSOs will be paired with an experienced
PSO or experienced field biologist so that the quality of marine mammal
observations and data recording is kept consistent.
(iii) Resumes for candidate PSOs will be provided to NMFS for
review and acceptance of their qualifications.
(iv) Inupiat observers shall be experienced in the region and
familiar with the marine mammals of the area.
(v) All observers will complete an observer training course
designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection
procedures.
(c) Establishing Disturbance Zones
(i) Establish zones of influence (ZOIs) surrounding the cable-
laying vessel where the received level would be 120 dB (rms) re 1
[micro]Pa. The size of the measured distance to the 120 dB (rms) re 1
[micro]Pa is 5.35 km.
(d) Marine Mammal Observation Protocol
(i) PSOs shall watch for marine mammals from the best available
vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge.
(ii) PSOs shall scan systematically with the unaided eye and 7 x 50
reticle binoculars, and night-vision and infra-red equipment when
needed.
(iii) Personnel on the bridge shall assist the marine mammal
observer(s) in watching for marine mammals; however, bridge crew
observations will not be used in lieu of PSO observation efforts.
(e) Monitoring Data Recording
(i) PSOs shall record the following information during monitoring:
(A) The species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if
determinable), the general behavioral activity, heading (if
consistent), bearing and distance from vessel, sighting cue, behavioral
pace, and apparent reaction of all marine
[[Page 22117]]
mammals seen near the vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach,
paralleling, etc.);
(B) The time, location, heading, speed, and activity of the vessel,
along with sea state, visibility, cloud cover and sun glare at (I) any
time a marine mammal is sighted, (II) at the start and end of each
watch, and (III) during a watch (whenever there is a change in one or
more variable);
(C) The identification of all vessels that are visible within 5 km
of the vessel from which observation is conducted whenever a marine
mammal is sighted and the time observed;
(D) Any identifiable marine mammal behavioral response (sighting
data should be collected in a manner that will not detract from the
PSO's ability to detect marine mammals);
(E) Any adjustments made to operating procedures; and
(F) Visibility during observation periods so that total estimates
of take can be corrected accordingly.
(ii) Distances to nearby marine mammals will be estimated with
binoculars (7 x 50 binoculars) containing a reticle to measure the
vertical angle of the line of sight to the animal relative to the
horizon. Observers may use a laser rangefinder to test and improve
their abilities for visually estimating distances to objects in the
water.
(iii) Quintillion shall use the best available technology to
improve detection capability during periods of fog and other types of
inclement weather. Such technology might include night-vision goggles
or binoculars as well as other instruments that incorporate infrared
technology.
(iv) PSOs shall understand the importance of classifying marine
mammals as ``unknown'' or ``unidentified'' if they cannot identify the
animals to species with confidence. In those cases, they shall note any
information that might aid in the identification of the marine mammal
sighted.
7. Reporting
(a) Marine Mammal Monitoring Report
(i) Quintillion shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report
within 90 days of the conclusion of the subsea cable-laying and O&M
activities or within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, whichever
comes first.
(ii) The draft report shall be subject to review and comment by
NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the report
prior to acceptance by NMFS.
(iii) The draft report will be considered the final report for this
activity under this Authorization if NMFS has not provided comments and
recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft report.
(b) Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA,
such as a serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear
interaction, and/or entanglement), Quintillion will immediately cease
the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report would
include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Name and type of vessel involved;
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Quintillion
to determine the necessary measures to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Quintillion would
not be able to resume its activities until notified by NMFS via letter,
email, or telephone.
(ii) In the event that Quintillion discovers a dead marine mammal,
and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the death is unknown and
the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of
decomposition as described in the next paragraph), Quintillion would
immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska
Stranding Hotline. The report would include the same information
identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work
with Quintillion to determine whether modifications in the activities
would be appropriate.
(iii) In the event that Quintillion discovers a dead marine mammal,
and the lead PSO determines that the death is not associated with or
related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously
wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or
scavenger damage), Quintillion would report the incident to the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline, within 24 hours of the discovery.
Quintillion would provide photographs or video footage (if available)
or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the
Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Quintillion can continue its
operations under such a case.
8. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each
contractor who performs the subsea cable-laying and O&M activities in
the U.S. Arctic Ocean.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the Quintillion's
subsea cable-laying and O&M activities in the U.S. Arctic Ocean. Please
include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations
to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA
authorization.
Dated: May 8, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-09599 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P