[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38877-38895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17305]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization 
(IHA).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that 
NMFS has issued an IHA to Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC 
(Quintillion) to take, by harassment, small numbers of 13 species of 
marine mammals incidental to conducting subsea cable-laying and 
maintenance activities in the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi seas, 
during the open-water season of 2017.

DATES: This authorization is valid from July 1, 2017, through November 
15, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

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 (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed 
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.

[[Page 38878]]

    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.
    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) Quintillion's 
2017 IHA application, (2) the 2016 EA and FONSI, and (3) the 2016 
Quintillion monitoring report, NMFS determined the issuance of an IHA 
to Quintillion for its 2017 activities falls within the scope of the 
analysis in the 2016 EA. NMFS determined issuance of another IHA to 
Quintillion would not result in significant adverse effects, 
individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. As such, NMFS 
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.

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 authorized from the specified 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, but not 
before the IHA is issued.

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 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-laying 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. A pontoon barge that will be positioned in place with a small 
river tug will first place the moored anchors. 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

[[Page 38879]]

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.
    Detailed description of each project component is provided in the 
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 22099; May 12, 
2017).

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Quintillion was 
published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22099). That 
notice described, in detail, Quintillion's activity, the marine mammal 
species and subsistence activities that may be affected by the proposed 
subsea cable-laying project, and the anticipated effects on marine 
mammals and subsistence activities. During the 30-day public comment 
period, NMFS received comment letters from the Marine Mammal Commission 
(Commission) and the North Slope Borough (NSB). Specific comments and 
responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commission states that the method used to estimate 
the numbers of takes during the proposed activities, which summed 
fractions of takes for each species across project days, does not 
account for and negates the intent of NMFS's 24-hour reset policy. The 
Commission further states that it understands NMFS has developed 
criteria associated with rounding and that the Commission looks forward 
to reviewing those criteria and resolving this matter in the near 
future.
    Response: While for certain projects NMFS has rounded to the whole 
number for daily takes, the circumstance for projects like this one 
when the objective of take estimation is to provide more accurate 
assessments for potential impacts to marine mammals for the entire 
project, rounding in the middle of a calculation would introduce large 
errors into the process. In addition, while NMFS uses a 24-hour reset 
for its take calculation to ensure that individual animals are not 
counted as a take more than once per day, that fact does not make the 
calculation of take across the entire activity period inherently 
incorrect. There is no need for daily (24-hour) rounding in this case 
because there is no daily limit of takes, so long as total authorized 
takes of marine mammal are not exceeded. In short, the calculation of 
predicted take is not an exact science and there are arguments for 
taking different mathematical approaches in different situations, and 
for making qualitative adjustments in other situations. NMFS also looks 
forward to discussing this issue with the Commission in the near 
future.
    Comment 2: The NSB requests that NMFS require Quintillion to 
develop and employ a more comprehensive monitoring plan than was 
required in 2016, which includes monitoring of bowhead whales in the 
far-field. The NSB states that during Quintillion's 2016 cable-laying 
operation, although whaling activities in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut were 
successful and did not appear to have been impacted by any industrial 
activities, Barrow whalers had to travel considerable distances to the 
east and northeast to locate and harvest whales. NSB states that 
several whalers expressed concerns that Quintillion's operations may 
have impacted the behavior and distribution of bowhead whales when they 
arrived near Barrow.
    Response: In reviewing and assessing Quintillion's 2017 marine 
mammal mitigation and monitoring plan for its potential impacts to 
subsistence use of marine mammal species, NMFS convened an independent 
peer-review panel (Panel) to review Quintillion's monitoring plan. The 
peer-review panel included one member from the NSB. The Quintillion's 
2017 operations is much less in scope than its cable-laying operations 
in 2016, which may had larger impacts to marine mammal species.
    The Panel considered whether conducting far-field monitoring would 
provide valuable information on marine mammal distribution relative to 
Quintillion's 2017 operations. The Panel discussed two types of PAM to 
achieve this monitoring goal: Fixed passive acoustic moorings that 
archive data for later analysis, and real-time passive acoustic 
monitoring (PAM). Completion of the cable-laying activities will be at 
a fixed location, offshore of Oliktok Point. Long-term acoustic 
moorings in the vicinity of the Oliktok branch could provide 
information on noise and marine mammal presence before, during, and 
after Quintillion's operations. These data would need to be analyzed 
after the moorings were recovered. Hence, there would be a considerable 
lag between when the operations occurred and when results from PAM 
mooring data were available, and these results would not be useful for 
mitigation purposes during the whaling season. The Panel inquired 
about, but is not aware of, any plans by other researchers to collect 
this type of data near Oliktok Point in 2017. From a logistical 
perspective, it is unlikely that Quintillion would be able to place 
moorings far enough in advance of the commencement of their operations 
or recover them long enough after completion for these data to be 
useful. Therefore, the Panel does not recommend that Quintillion invest 
in long-term PAM near Oliktok Point.
    Alternatively, Quintillion could deploy buoys in whaling areas for 
real-time PAM to serve as an alert system for detecting anthropogenic 
noise. However, this type of monitoring is expensive: buoys must be 
deployed and recovered, and the buoys operate via satellite link (or 
cell phone link if close to shore with coverage) to send summaries of 
noise levels on an hourly or daily basis, depending on what the user 
wants. The Panel did not consider real-time PAM to be a cost-effective 
option and does not recommend Quintillion incorporate it into their 
2017 4MP.
    One panel member recommended that Quintillion stage PSOs on vessels 
stationed at a distance from the primary noise sources associated with 
either cable-laying or O&M activities to conduct far-field monitoring. 
However, a different panel member did not support this recommendation 
due to concerns about an increase in the acoustic footprint when more 
vessels operate in the general area. Given these reservations about the 
reliability of the data collected by Quintillion's vessel-based PSOs, 
this panel member did not think additional monitoring by vessel-based 
or aerial PSOs hired by Quintillion would be valuable. In general, the 
ability to detect changes in bowhead whale distribution due to 
Quintillion's efforts using data collected by a dedicated aerial survey 
focused on Quintillion's activities will depend upon the whales' 
density, the amount of survey effort achieved, and the magnitude of the 
whales' change in distribution. The lower the whale density, survey 
coverage, or magnitude of deflection, the more difficult it would be to 
identify changes in whale distribution.
    Based on the peer-review panel's recommendation and NMFS 
assessment, we do not consider requiring far-field monitoring during 
Quintillion's subsea cable-laying and maintenance operations would 
improve mitigation and monitoring effectives. Nevertheless, Quintillion 
is required to implement

[[Page 38880]]

rigorous measures to communicate with subsistence users to prevent any 
unmitigatable adverse impacts it may have on subsistence activities 
during its subsea cable-laying and maintenance operations in the 2017 
open-water season (see below).
    Comment 3: The NSB requests that NMFS require Quintillion to make 
the data it collected in 2016 and the data it will collect in 2017 
publicly available.
    Response: Quintillion is required to make the marine mammal and 
underwater acoustic data it collected in 2016 and the data it will 
collect in 2017 publicly available. All PSO observation data from the 
2016 operations were included in the 90-day reports. All PSO 
observation data from the 2017 operations will be provided in the 2017 
90-day reports. Additionally, Quintillion states that it has provided 
vessel location data for all vessels during the 2016 whale hunt to the 
North Slope Borough upon request.
    Comment 4: The NSB requests that NMFS require Quintillion to cease 
operations on August 25, 2017, until the fall hunts in Kaktovik, 
Nuiqsut, and Barrow are complete.
    Response: The fall hunts typically end around November 15. 
Requiring Quintillion to cease operations between August 25 and 
November 15 would only allow Quintillion to perform its subsea cable-
laying and maintenance between July 1 and August 24. This measure would 
be impracticable for the company to perform its cable-laying and 
maintenance work during the 2017 open water season. In addition, the 
2017 Quintillion operations are focused on installation of the fiber 
optic cable from Oliktok Point to a location 76 km north of the point. 
Neither past nor current Open Water Season Conflict Avoidance 
Agreements (CAAs) have identified this as an area where season 
shutdowns have been requested.
    To ensure that Quintillion's proposed cable-laying and maintenance 
work will have no unmitigable impacts on subsistence use of marine 
mammals, Quintillion is required to implement effective communication 
with the subsistence community during its operations. In addition, from 
August 31 to October 31, transiting vessels in the Chukchi Sea or 
Beaufort Sea by Quintillion vessels will 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. Therefore, NMFS 
believes that Quintillion is able to achieve mitigable measures for 
subsistence use of marine mammals without ceasing its operations 
between August 25 and the end of fall hunting season.
    Comment 5: The NSB requests that NMFS require Quintillion to enter 
into the Open Water Season Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the 
Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC).
    Response: Under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), an IHA or LOA would be granted to U.S. citizens 
who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) 
within a specified geographical region if NMFS finds that the taking of 
marine mammals will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) 
and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of 
the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and if the 
permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the 
mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. In 
other words, no marine mammal take authorizations may be issued if NMFS 
has reason to believe that the proposed cable-laying and maintenance 
activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of marine mammal species or stock(s) for Alaskan native 
subsistence uses. Although Federal laws do not require consultation 
with the native coastal communities until after Quintillion's 
operational plan have been finalized, permitted, and authorized, pre-
permitting consultations between the Quintillion and the Alaskan 
coastal native communities are considered by NMFS when the agency makes 
a determination whether such activities would have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal species or stock(s) 
for subsistence uses. For the proposed subsea cable-laying and 
maintenance operations, Quintillion has conducted Plan of Cooperation 
(POC) meetings for its proposed operations in the Arctic Ocean in 
Anchorage and in the communities and villages of Utqiagvik, Kotzebue, 
Point Hope, and Wainwright.
    Quintillion has not signed the 2017 CAA with AEWC. The CAA is only 
applicable to activities related to oil and gas exploration in the 
Arctic. In addition, Quintillion states that it met with AEWC and the 
Barrow Whaling Captains Association (BWCA) on multiple occasions, and 
while the CAA was discussed, neither organization has requested 
participation in the CAA.
    NMFS has scrutinized all of the documents submitted by Quintillion 
(e.g., IHA application, Plan of Cooperation and marine mammal 
monitoring and mitigation plan) and the recommendations by the peer-
review panel and concluded that harassment of marine mammals incidental 
to Quintillion's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses. 
This finding was based in large part on NMFS' definition of 
``unmitigable adverse impact'', the proposed mitigation and monitoring 
measures, the scope of activities proposed to be conducted, including 
time of year, location and presence of marine mammals in the project 
area, and Quintillion's Plan of Cooperation. In addition, based on the 
90-day report from Quintillion's 2016 cable-laying activity, there is 
no observed effects to overall marine mammal in the project area. Many 
of the mitigation and monitoring measures are summarized in Response to 
Comment 4 above and are listed below in ``Mitigation'' section. 
Therefore, NMFS does not believe that signing a CAA is warranted.

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 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

[[Page 38881]]

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 
project areas but are not expected to have reasonable potential to be 
harassed by the 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 Within the Quintillion Cable-Laying and Maintenance Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Stock
                                                                                              ESA/MMPA       abundance
                                                                                               status;      (CV, Nmin,                      Annual M/SI
              Common name                    Scientific name                Stock             Strategic     most recent         PBR             \3\
                                                                                              (Y/N) \1\      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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         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.


[[Page 38882]]

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 Hz and 35 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 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 
2013).
    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 the reasonable potential to co-
occur with the proposed cable-laying and maintenance 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).

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 includes a quantitative analysis of the number 
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section considers the 
content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment'' section, and the ``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.
    The 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

[[Page 38883]]

(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). 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 a 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, 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.

[[Page 38884]]

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 the 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 
authorized under 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 operating sea plow and anchor handling 
associated with cable-laying and maintenance and repair activities. 
Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither 
anticipated nor authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized 
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: 
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available 
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur 
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of 
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the 
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; 
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these 
components in more detail and present the take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g. 
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
    Applicant's proposed activity includes the use of continuous noise 
(noise from sea plow and anchor handling), therefore the 120 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms) is applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to 
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine 
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to 
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
    These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the 
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both 
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are 
provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology 
used in the development

[[Page 38885]]

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which 
may be accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
    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.....  Lrms,flat: 160 dB................  Lrms,flat: 120 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.....
                                     LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.....
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).  Lpk,flat: 218 dB......  LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.....
                                     LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.....
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)  Lpk,flat: 232 dB......  LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.....
                                     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.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds.
    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 between 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.

[[Page 38886]]

    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 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 to the Level B Harassment Threshold (120 dB) for each of Quintillion's 2017 Cable-
                 Lay Activities and the Length of Route Over Which These Activities Would Occur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Distance to    Route length     Ensonified
          Operation                 Season          Water body     120-dB  (km)        (km)        area  (km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea plow (pre-trenching &      Summer..........  Beaufort.......            5.35             187           2,001
 cable-laying by Ile de Batz).
Anchor handling (in            Summer..........  Beaufort.......            8.45              16             270
 association of cable-laying
 by barges).
ROV (O&M)....................  Fall............  Bering &                   2.30             100             460
                                                  Chukchi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Due to such a small impact zones, 
NMFS considers it highly unlikely that Level A takes would occur for 
this project.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    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

[[Page 38887]]

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, a total of 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) 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

[[Page 38888]]

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.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    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 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 
Mitigation section. Last, the information from this section and the 
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 by far the 
highest with about 25 whales taken each year and 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

[[Page 38889]]

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).

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 consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as 
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential 
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further 
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if 
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if 
implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation 
(probability implemented as planned). and;
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

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 
conducting 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.

[[Page 38890]]

    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).
    (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 measures, NMFS has 
determined that the prescribed mitigation measures provide the means 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the 
availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
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).
     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

[[Page 38891]]

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 must 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.
(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.
(4) Monitoring Measures That Support Impact Analyses
    Quintillion shall evaluate whether the angle of the vessel relative 
to the recording location has any effect on the received levels for its 
2016 SSV tests, and work with the National Marine Mammal Laboratory 
(NMML) to compare the SSV received levels with the levels obtained by 
the mooring-based PAM data to determine whether the results from the 
SSV testing need to be corrected based on the bearing of the recording 
equipment to the ship. The results will be included in the 2017 
monitoring report.
    Quintillion will contribute $20,000 to the University of Alaska, 
Fairbanks for their bowhead whale feeding study in the eastern Chukchi 
Sea or western Beaufort Sea during the open water season.
    Quintillion shall undertake efforts to further evaluate potential 
impacts of the 2016 activities on bowhead whales and, subsequently, 
whaling efforts, if being requested.
    Quintillion shall make the marine mammal and underwater acoustic 
data it collected in 2016 and the data it will collect in 2017 publicly 
available.
(5) Passive Acoustics Monitoring
    Quintillion shall conduct sound source verification on the vibro 
plow that would be used for cable-laying in the Beaufort Sea.

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

[[Page 38892]]

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 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, ``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 provided comments to NMFS in 
April 2017. The full panel report can be viewed on the Internet at: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.html.
    NMFS provided the panel with Quintillion's IHA application and 
monitoring plan and asked the panel to answer the following questions:
    1. Will the applicant's stated objectives effectively further the 
understanding of the impacts of their activities on marine mammals and 
otherwise accomplish the goals stated above? If not, how should the 
objectives be modified to better accomplish the goals above?
    2. Can the applicant achieve the stated objectives based on the 
methods described in the plan?
    3. Are there technical modifications to the proposed monitoring 
techniques and methodologies proposed by the applicant that should be 
considered to better accomplish their stated objectives?
    4. Are there techniques not proposed by the applicant (i.e., 
additional monitoring techniques or methodologies) that should be 
considered for inclusion in the applicant's monitoring program to 
better accomplish their stated objectives?
    5. What is the best way for an applicant to present their data and 
results (formatting, metrics, graphics, etc.) in the required reports 
that are to be submitted to NMFS (i.e., 90-day report and comprehensive 
report)?
    The peer-review panel report contains recommendations that the 
panel members felt were applicable to the Quintillion's monitoring 
plans. Specifically, the panel recommended the following:
    (1) When marine mammals are sighted within the Level B harassment 
zone, Quintillion should reduce, where possible, all sound sources that 
have the potential to exceed the threshold for Level B harassment. 
These may include reducing speed or temporarily stopping winch 
operations, reducing underwater ploughing speed, temporarily stopping 
jetting, stopping or reducing beacon pinging rate and other subordinate 
noise sources to decrease the project's overall acoustic footprint;
    (2) Quintillion continue to work with subsistence organizations, 
such as the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), and the Arctic 
Waterways Safety Committee (AWSC) to identify local contacts in each 
community that Quintillion can regularly communicate with to inform the 
communities and accept feedback about their ongoing operations;
    (3) Quintillion evaluate whether the angle of the vessel relative 
to the recording location has any effect on the

[[Page 38893]]

received levels for its 2016 SSV tests, and work with the National 
Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) to compare the SSV received levels with 
the levels obtained by the mooring-based PAM data to determine whether 
the results from the SSV testing need to be corrected based on the 
bearing of the recording equipment to the ship;
    (4) Because it is unlikely Quintillion will be able to minimize 
disturbance to marine mammals and is not proposing to conduct pre-
activity, post-activity, or far-field monitoring, Quintillion should 
contribute to existing or ongoing studies to identify, quantify, or 
forecast bowhead whale prey and its associated distribution in the 
eastern Chukchi Sea or western Beaufort Sea during the open water 
season;
    (5) Quintillion undertake efforts to further evaluate potential 
impacts of the 2016 activities on bowhead whales and, subsequently, 
whaling efforts. If data warrant a thorough evaluation, Quintillion 
could contribute financially to analysis efforts; and
    (6) Quintillion stated in its IHA application that it would forego 
additional SSV testing on the vibro plow, instead of using SSV tests 
conducted on similar equipment near France in 2014 as a proxy. If so, 
Quintillion should provide additional details to NMFS and the Panel to 
justify why conducting an SSV on the vibro plow in the Arctic is not 
warranted. Specifically, how might factors such as difference in the 
substrate type, depth of the ocean bottom, sound speed profile, and 
plow speed and operation mode affect the sound radiation and 
propagation from the vibro plow when operating off France compared to 
in the Beaufort Sea.
    NMFS discussed the peer review panel report and the list of 
recommendations with Quintillion. For the aforementioned monitoring 
measures, NMFS requires and Quintillion agrees to implement the 
following:
    (1) Continue to work with subsistence organizations, such as the 
Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), and the Arctic Waterways 
Safety Committee (AWSC) to identify local contacts in each community 
that Quintillion can regularly communicate with to inform the 
communities and accept feedback about their ongoing operations;
    (2) Contribute $20,000 to the University of Alaska, Fairbanks for 
their bowhead whale feeding study in the eastern Chukchi Sea or western 
Beaufort Sea during the open water season; and
    (3) Conduct sound source verification on the vibro plow that would 
be used for cable-laying in the Beaufort Sea.
    Regarding whether the angle of the vessel relative to the recording 
location has any effect on the received levels for its 2016 SSV tests, 
Quintillion's contractor Illingworth and Rodkin has already examined 
these question regarding the 2016 data. The results will be included in 
the 2017 monitoring report. For SSV tests planned in 2017, acoustic 
recordings from all angles will be examined and the results will be 
included in the 2017 monitoring report.
    Regarding the recommendation that require Quintillion to undertake 
efforts to further evaluate potential impacts of the 2016 activities on 
bowhead whales and subsequently, whaling efforts, Quintillion states 
that it will continue to support scientific evaluations of the 
potential impact of 2016 activities on bowhead whales and, 
consequently, whaling efforts, by providing vessel and observation data 
and other in-kind support as appropriate.
    However, regarding the recommendation that requires Quintillion to 
reduce vessel speed or temporarily stopping winch operation, reduce 
underwater ploughing speed, or temporarily stop jetting, these measures 
are not feasible during cable-laying activities as they would cause 
safety concerns or affecting the cable-laying and maintenance 
operations. Therefore, this measure is not included in the IHA issued 
to Quintillion.

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's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, 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 prescribed 
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. However, the levels of potential impacts to these species are 
expected to be minor and brief in the form of short-term changes in 
behavior, as with other species discussed above. The behavioral

[[Page 38894]]

disturbances caused by exposure to elevated noise levels from cable-
laying and maintenance activities are not expected to affect the 
population level of these species. 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 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 prescribed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from 
the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected 
marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under 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, where estimated numbers are 
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most 
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in 
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small 
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may 
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of 
the activities.
    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 prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of 
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the 
affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified 
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the 
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by 
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 
CFR 216.103 as: ``an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) 
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level 
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing 
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly 
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers 
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That 
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the 
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    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 will not have 
unmitigable adverse impact to subsistence use of marine mammals in the 
affected areas. In addition, the issued IHA requires 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 prescribed mitigation and 
monitoring measures, NMFS has 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, in this case with the NMFS Alaska Region 
Protected Resources Division Office, 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. In June 2017, NMFS finished conducting its 
section 7 consultation and issued a Biological Opinion concluding that 
the issuance of the IHA associated with Quintillion's subsea cable-
laying and maintenance work in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas 
during the 2017 open-water season is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the endangered bowhead, humpback, and fin 
whales, and Steller sea lion. No critical habitat has been designated 
for

[[Page 38895]]

these species, therefore none will be affected.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to 
Quintillion for the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, 
incidental to conducting subsea cable-laying operations and maintenance 
work in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas during the 2017 open-
water season, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, 
and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: August 10, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17305 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P