[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