81 FR 40274 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Subsea Cable-Laying Operations in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 119 (June 21, 2016)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 119 (June 21, 2016)
| Page Range | 40274-40287 | |
| FR Document | 2016-14585 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 40274-40287] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-14585] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE442 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Subsea Cable-Laying Operations in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas 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 12 species of marine mammals incidental to a subsea cable-laying operation in the state and federal waters of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, Alaska, during the open-water season of 2016. DATES: This authorization is effective from June 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016. 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 to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.'' Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS's review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. 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]. Summary of Request On October 29, 2015, NMFS received an IHA application and marine mammal mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP) from Quintillion for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting subsea cable-laying activities in the U.S. Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. After receiving NMFS' comments on the initial application, Quintillion made revisions and updated its IHA application and 4MP on February 3, 2016. NMFS determined that the application and the 4MP were adequate and complete on February 5, 2016. NMFS published a notice on March 30, 2016 (81 FR 17666) making preliminary determinations and proposing to issue an IHA. The notice initiated a 30-day comment period. Quintillion proposed to install a subsea fiber optic network cable along [[Page 40275]] the northern and western coasts of Alaska in the U.S. Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas during the 2016 Arctic open-water season. The activity would occur between June 1 and October 31, 2016. Noise generated from the cable vessel's dynamic positioning thruster could impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities. Take, by Level B harassments, of individuals of 12 species of marine mammals from the specified activity is authorized by the IHA. Description of the Specified Activity A detailed description of Quintillion's subsea cable-laying program is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 17666; March 30, 2016). Since that time, no changes have been made to the proposed construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity. Comments and Responses A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Quintillion was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2016 (81 FR 17666). 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 comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and the North Slope Borough (NSB). Specific comments and responses are provided below. Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the requested incidental harassment authorization, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures. Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and has included the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures contained in the proposed authorization in the issued IHA. Comment 2: The NSB requests Quintillion continue coordination with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), and its member communities, and other Alaska Native marine mammal user groups as appropriate, and participation in the well-established and effective Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) process. Response: Quintillion has worked closely with AEWC, the co- management groups, and the villages to develop a Plan of Cooperation (POC) that recognizes the time and place of subsistence use and provides an effective plan for avoiding active subsistence areas. Quintillion stated that it has discussed the potential for a CAA with the AEWC and that they agreed it is not necessary for Quintillion to sign a CAA for its subsea cable-laying project; therefore, Quintillion is not signing a CAA. NMFS has conducted a thorough analysis of the potential impact on subsistence activities from Quintillion's proposed subsea cable-laying operations and determined that the proposed project would not have unmitigable impacts to subsistence use of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area, given that Quintillion is required to implement a number of mitigation and monitoring measures (see ``Impacts on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence Use'' section below for details). In addition, Quintillion has prepared a POC, which includes detailed maps showing scheduled cable-laying activity relative to seasonal subsistence use. Quintillion states that these maps have been reviewed and the schedule is supported by AEWC. NMFS has reviewed the POC and believes it contains all necessary information for us to make the above determination. Comment 3: The NSB requests Quintillion to communicate with all villages near its operations to make sure its activities do not disrupt subsistence activities, and to ensure the life, health and safety of Borough residents who may be out on the ocean. Response: As stated earlier in Response to Comment 2, the POC provided by Quintillion contains all necessary information for us to make a determination that Quintillion's proposed subsea cable-laying activity would not have an unmitigable impact to subsistence use of marine mammal resources in the vicinity of the project area. This POC also includes the daily communication plan that Quintillion will be implementing. Further, Quintillion stated it is donating to AEWC and landing villages memberships to Marine Exchange Alaska, which will allow real-time tracking of Quintillion vessels during its subsea cable-laying operations. Comment 4: The NSB requests Quintillion conduct a robust visual and acoustical monitoring program with input from subsistence hunters and the Borough's Department of Wildlife Management. Response: For the issuance of the IHA to Quintillion, NMFS worked with the applicant, NMFS' biologists in the Alaska Region and Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and an independent peer-review panel to ensure that robust visual and acoustical monitoring programs are in place to provide adequate monitoring measures during Quintillion's subsea cable-laying operations in the Arctic. For visual monitoring, Quintillion is required to place both Inupiat and non-native Protected Species Observers (PSO) on three cable-laying vessels to conduct visual monitoring throughout the entire project during the daylight period, including all vessel transits. Quintillion is also required to provide substantial financial support to two existing passive acoustical monitoring (PAM) programs that will be monitoring both marine mammals and vessel noise in the cable-laying project area. These include supporting the National Marine Mammal Laboratory's (NMML) PAM program in the northern Chukchi and western Beaufort Seas, and the Kotzebue Sound PAM in the southern Chukchi Sea. Support of these active programs, in lieu of a separate and unproven PAM program, was recommended by Dr. Robert Suydam with the NSB Department of Wildlife Management during the monitoring plan independent peer-review process. This approach was additionally supported by Dr. Manuel Castellote with NMML, who would also be the acoustical liaison for both PAM projects and would help to ensure the PAM projects provide the necessary information on marine mammal vocalizations and ship underwater sound needed for the 90-day report. Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity The Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas support a diverse assemblage of marine mammals. Table 1 lists the 12 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area. [[Page 40276]] Table 1--Marine Mammal Species With Confirmed or Possible Occurrence in the Proposed Action Area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Common name Scientific name Status Occurrence Seasonality Range Abundance -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Odontocetes Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea stock) Delphinapterus ................... Common............. Mostly spring and Mostly Beaufort Sea 39,258 leucas. fall with some in summer. Beluga whale (eastern Chukchi Sea .................... ................... Common............. Mostly spring and Mostly Chukchi Sea. 3,710 stock). fall with some in summer. Beluga whale (eastern Bering Sea .................... ................... Common............. Year round......... Bering Sea......... 19,186 stock). Killer whale (Alaska resident Orcinus orca........ ................... Occasional/ Mostly summer and California to 2,347 stock). Extralimital. early fall. Alaska. Harbor porpoise (Bering Sea Phocoena phocoena... ................... Occasional/ Mostly summer and California to 48,215 stock). Extralimital. early fall. Alaska. Mysticetes * Bowhead whale (W. Arctic stock) Balaena mysticetus.. Endangered; Common............. Mostly spring and Russia to Canada... 19,534 Depleted. fall with some in summer. Gray whale (E. North Pacific Eschrichtius ................... Somewhat common.... Mostly summer...... Mexico to the U.S. 20,990 stock). robustus. Arctic Ocean. * Fin whale (N. East Pacific).... Balaenoptera Endangered; Rare............... Mostly summer...... N.E. Pacific Ocean. 1,650 physalus. Depleted. Minke whale...................... Balaenoptera ................... Rare............... Mostly summer...... N.E. Pacific Ocean. 810 acutorostrata. * Humpback whale (Central North Megaptera Endangered; Rare............... Mostly summer...... North Pacific Ocean 10,103 Pacific stock). novaeangliae. Depleted. * Humpback whale (western North .................... Endangered; Rare............... Mostly summer...... North Pacific Ocean 1,107 Pacific stock). Depleted. Pinnipeds Bearded seal (Alaska stock)...... Erigathus barbatus.. ................... Common............. Spring and summer.. Bering, Chukchi, 155,000 and Beaufort Seas. Ringed seal (Alaska stock)....... Phoca hispida....... ................... Common............. Year round......... Bering, Chukchi, 249,000 and Beaufort Seas. Spotted seal (Alaska stock)...... Phoca largha........ ................... Common............. Summer............. Japan to U.S. 460,268 Arctic Ocean. Ribbon seal (Alaska stock)....... Histriophoca ................... Occasional......... Summer............. Russia to U.S. 49,000 fasciata. Arctic Ocean. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Endangered, threatened, or species of concern under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); Depleted under the MMPA. Among these species, bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, walrus and polar bear could also occur in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas; however, these species are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not considered in this Notice of Issuance of an IHA. Of all these species, bowhead and beluga whales and ringed, bearded, and spotted seals are the species most frequently sighted in the proposed activity area. The proposed action area in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas also includes areas that have been identified as important for bowhead whale reproduction during summer and fall and for beluga whale feeding and reproduction in summer. Most bowheads migrate in the fall through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in water depths between 15 and 200 m (50 and 656 ft) deep (Miller et al. 2002), with annual variability depending on ice conditions. Hauser et al. (2008) conducted surveys for bowhead whales near the Colville River Delta (near Oliktok Point) during August and September 2008, and found most bowheads between 25 and 30 km (15.5 and 18.6 mi) north of the barrier islands (Jones Islands), with the nearest in 18 m (60 ft) of water about 25 km (16 mi) north of the Colville River Delta. No bowheads were observed inside the 18-m (60-ft) isobath. Most of the cable-lay activity planned for the Beaufort Sea will occur in water deeper than 15 m (50 ft), where migrating bowhead whales could most likely be encountered. Three stocks of beluga whale inhabit the waters where cable-lay is planned to occur: Beaufort Sea, Eastern Chukchi Sea, and Eastern Bering Sea (O'Corry-Crowe et al. 1997). All three stocks winter in the open leads and polynyas of the Bering Sea (Hazard 1988). In spring, the Beaufort Sea stock migrates through coastal leads more than 2,000 km (1,200 mi) to their summering grounds in the Mackenzie River delta where they molt, feed, and calve in the warmer estuarine waters (Braham et al. 1977). In late summer, these belugas move into offshore northern waters to feed (Davis and Evans 1982, Harwood et al. 1996, Richard et al. 2001). In the fall, they begin their migration back to their wintering grounds generally following an offshore route as they pass through the western Beaufort Sea (Richard et al. 2001). The Beaufort Sea stock beluga whales take a more coastal route during their fall migration, but compared to the vanguard of population and the survey effort expended, nearshore travel appears to be relatively rare. Most belugas recorded during aerial surveys conducted in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in the last two decades were found more than 65 km (40 mi) from shore (Miller et al. 1999, Funk et al. 2008, Christie et al. 2010, Clarke and Ferguson 2010, Brandon et al. 2011). For the most part, beluga whales from this stock are expected to occur well north of the proposed cable route through the Beaufort Sea at the time of cable-lay activity. The Eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whale stock summers in Kotzebue Sound and Kasegaluk Lagoon where they breed and molt, and then in late summer and fall they also move in the Beaufort Sea (Suydam et al. 2005). Suydam et al. (2005) satellite-tagged 23 beluga whales in Kasegaluk Lagoon and found nearly all the whales move into [[Page 40277]] the deeper waters of the Beaufort Sea post-tagging. However, virtually none of the whales were found in continental shelf waters (<200 m deep) of the Beaufort Sea, and all were in waters at least 65 km (40 mi) north of the northern Alaska coastline. The most recent stock estimate is 3,710 animals (Allen and Angliss 2015). The planned cable-lay activity is most likely to encounter this stock while laying the Kotzebue and Wainwright branch lines, but the routes do avoid the Kasegaluk Lagoon breeding and molting area. There is little information on movements of the East Bering Sea stock of beluga whales, although two whales that were satellite-tagged in 2012 near Nome wintered in Bristol Bay (Allen and Angliss 2015). Whales from this stock might be encountered while laying the Nome branch line. In addition, a few gray whales are expected to be encountered along the main trunk line route through the north Bering and Chukchi seas. However, they are expected to be commonly observed along the nearshore segments of the branch lines, especially the Wainwright branch, where they are commonly found in large feeding groups. Three of the ice seal species--ringed, bearded, and spotted seals-- are fairly common in the proposed subsea cable-laying areas. However, there are no pinnipeds haulouts in the vicinity of the action area. Fin whale, minke whale, and ribbon seal are not common in the vicinity of the project area, though they could occur occasionally. Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in Quintillion's application (see ADDRESSES) and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.html. Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals The effects of the stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., acoustic effects of operation of dynamic thrusters) have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 17666, March 30, 2016) included a discussion of the effects of acoustic stimuli on marine mammals. Therefore, that information is not repeated here. No instances of injury, serious injury, or mortality (Level A take) are expected as a result of the subsea cable-laying operation activities, nor are any Level A take authorized by this IHA. Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat Project activities that could potentially impact marine mammal habitats include acoustical impacts to prey resources from thruster noise and impacts associated with laying cable on sea bottom. Regarding the former, however, acoustical injury from thruster noise is unlikely. Previous noise studies (e.g., Greenlaw et al. 1988, 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 decibels (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, United Kingdom, 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 ploughs or jets to cut trenches in the sea floor sediment. Cable ploughs 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. The plough 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 plough blade, plough skid, or remote operating vehicle (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 2 to 3 m (7-10 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 its source. Suspended sand particles generally settle within about 20 m (66 ft). BERR (2008) 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 plough operations rated the lowest at 1, with jetting rating from 2 to 4, depending on substrate. Dredging rated the highest (6) relative sediment disturbance. The maximum amount of trenching possible is about 1,900 km (1,180 mi), but the width of primary effect is only about 3 m (10 ft). Thus, the maximum impact footprint is less than 6 km\2\ (2.3 mi\2\), an insignificantly small area given the Chukchi Sea area alone is 595,000 km\2\ (230,000 mi\2\). Overall, cable-laying effects to marine mammal habitat and prey resources are considered not significant. Mitigation Measures In order to issue an incidental take authorization 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 adverse 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. The primary purpose of these mitigation measures is to detect marine mammals and avoid vessel interactions during the pre- and post- cable-laying 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) Establishing Zone of Influence (ZOI) A PSO would establish a ZOI where the received level is 120 dB during Qunitillion's subsea cable-laying operation and conduct marine mammal monitoring during the operation. (b) Vessel Movement Mitigation during Pre- and Post-cable-laying Activities When the cable-lay fleet is traveling in Alaskan waters to and from the [[Page 40278]] project area (before and after completion of cable-laying), 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 Conclusions NMFS has carefully evaluated prescribed mitigation measures for Quintillion's planned subsea cable-laying project and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation. Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below: 1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal); 2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only); 3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only); 4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only); 5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time; and 6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation. Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the prescribed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Prescribed measures to ensure availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed later in this document (see ``Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses'' section). 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 IHAs 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. Quintillion submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. The plan has not been modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period or from the peer review panel (see the ``Monitoring Plan Peer Review'' section later in this document). Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals: 1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, i.e., presence, abundance, distribution, and/or density of species; 2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g. sound or visual stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following: The action itself and its environment (e.g. sound source characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected species (e.g. life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal (e.g. age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding areas); 3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible, e.g., at what distance or received level); 4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g. through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival); 5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals); 6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region; 7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures; and 8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals. [[Page 40279]] Monitoring Measures Monitoring will provide information on the numbers of marine mammals affected by the subsea cable-laying 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 2016 by conducting vessel-based monitoring and passive acoustic monitoring to document marine mammal presence and distribution in the vicinity of the operation area. Visual monitoring by PSOs during subsea cable-laying 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 PSOs Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by trained PSOs throughout the period of subsea cable-laying operation. The observers will monitor the occurrence of marine mammals near the cable- laying vessel during all daylight periods during operation. PSO duties include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey operations; and documenting ``take by harassment.'' 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 operations in daylight; Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and Maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO. PSO teams will consist of Inupiat observers and experienced field biologists. Each vessel will have an experienced field crew leader to supervise the PSO team. The total number of PSOs may decrease later in the season as the duration of daylight decreases. (1) PSOs Qualification and Training Lead PSOs and most PSOs will be individuals with experience as observers during marine mammal monitoring projects in Alaska or other offshore areas in recent years. New or inexperienced PSOs would be paired with an experienced PSO or experienced field biologist so that the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording is kept consistent. Resumes for candidate PSOs will be provided to NMFS for review and acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers would be experienced in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the area. All observers will complete a NMFS-approved observer training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. (2) 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. Acoustic Monitoring (1) Sound Source Measurements Quintillion will conduct a sound source verification (SSV) on one of the cable-lay ships and the anchor-handling tugs when both are operating near Nome (early in the season). (2) Passive Acoustic Monitoring After consulting with NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), and the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife, Quintillion will contribute to the 2016 joint Arctic Whale Ecology Study (ARCWEST)/Chukchi Acoustics, Oceanography, and Zooplankton Study-extension (CHAOZ-X). The summer minimum extent of sea ice in the northern Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and western Beaufort Sea has diminished by more than 50 percent over the past two decades. This loss of ice has sparked concerns for long-term survival of ice-dependent species like polar bears, Pacific walrus, bearded seals, and ringed seals. In contrast, populations of some Arctic species such as bowhead and gray whales have increased in abundance, while subarctic species such as humpback, fin, and minke whales have expanded their ranges into the Arctic in response to warmer water and increased zooplankton production. The joint ARCWEST/CHAOZ-X program has been monitoring climate change and anthropogenic activity in the Arctic [[Page 40280]] waters of Alaska since 2010 by tracking satellite-tagged animals, sampling lower trophic levels and physical oceanography, and passively acoustically monitoring marine mammal and vessel activity. The current mooring locations for the PAM portion of the joint program align closely with the proposed Quintillion cable-lay route. Operating passive acoustic recorders at these locations in 2016 would not only provide information on the distribution and composition of the marine mammal community along the proposed cable-lay route at the time cable-lay activities would be occurring, but they could also record the contribution of the cable-lay activity on the local acoustical environment where the route passes close to these stations. Reporting Measures (1) Sound Source Verification Report A report on the preliminary results of the sound source verification measurements, including the measured source level, shall be submitted within 14 days after collection of those measurements at the start of the field season. This report will specify the distances of the ZOI that were adopted for the survey. (2) Technical Report (90-Day Report) A draft report will be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 days after the end of Quintillion's subsea cable-laying operation in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The report will describe in detail: 1. Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total distances, and marine mammal distribution through the project period, accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals); 2. Summaries that represent an initial level of interpretation of the efficacy, measurements, and observations; 3. Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare); 4. Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover; 5. Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the sampling method and data available; and 6. A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual estimated takes. The draft report shall be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final 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. (3) 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 Chief of 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 Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. 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 Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, 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 operation in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The panel met via web conference in early March 2016, and provided comments to NMFS in April 2016. 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 [[Page 40281]] 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) Additional PAM recorders be deployed closer to shore, if possible. This would allow for monitoring of sounds generated by nearshore cable-laying barges, as well as for detection of marine mammals. The panel identified waters near Kotzebue as a high priority for additional acoustic monitoring due to the presence of marine mammals sensitive to acoustic disturbance, such as beluga whales and bearded seals, and the reliance on those species for subsistence purposes; (2) Quintillion contributes funding to assist in the analysis of existing data from passive acoustic monitors deployed in 2013-2015 near Kotzebue. These data could serve as a baseline for noise levels and marine mammal distribution and vocalization rates during years in which cable-laying activities were not operating. Given financial constraints, the Panel recommends funding analyses of these additional PAM data at the expense of Quintillion's proposed plan for PSOs to visually monitor for marine mammals; (3) If possible, PSOs be deployed on shallow-water barges. If accommodations are limited, PSOs could be deployed on a daily basis. If PSOs cannot be deployed, the panel recommends that crew members receive PSO training; (4) Infra-red systems have improved considerably and should be considered as an additional monitoring tool for operations at night or in low visibility conditions; (5) If subsea cable-laying operations are not completed by mid- September in the Beaufort Sea, Quintillion should have a contingency plan for monitoring potential impacts to marine mammals, generally, and bowheads specifically. Because of the sensitivity of bowheads to anthropogenic sounds and the importance of the western Beaufort Sea as a feeding area, the monitoring plan should include methods for monitoring ``over-the-horizon.'' This plan might include aerial surveys, scout vessels with PSOs, or some other method. The information collected during this monitoring effort, if needed, would be very helpful in developing a mitigation and monitoring plan if Quintillion lays cable through the remainder of the Beaufort Sea in the future; (6) Quintillion should also have an appropriate communication plan in place to avoid impacting fall hunts of bowhead whales in the Beaufort (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow) and Chukchi seas (Barrow, Wainwright, and Point Lay), as much as possible; and (7) Quintillion should also ensure all sources of noise are included in SSV measurements and in its description of anticipated source levels (not just thrusters but winches under tension, plough hydraulics, active transducers, jetting, etc.). The ROV includes two jets, and it would be useful to get SSV measurements of the ROVs also. 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) Conducting additional PAM in nearshore waters near Kotzebue; (2) Contributing an additional $20,000 funding to assist in the analysis of existing data from passive acoustic monitors deployed in 2013-2015 near Kotzebue; (3) Using infra-red systems for marine mammal monitoring at night or in low visibility conditions; (4) Quintillion is required to have an appropriate communication plan in place to avoid impacting fall hunts of bowhead whales in the Beaufort (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow) and Chukchi seas (Barrow, Wainwright, and Point Lay), as much as possible. The communication plan is part of the POC that Quintillion submitted to NMFS; and (5) Conducting SSV measurements on all noise sources, including noise from the cable ship during plowing operations, and noise from the nearshore barge during winching, anchor-handling, and ROV operations. However, in discussions with Quintillion, NMFS determined that the following recommendations from the peer-review panel cannot be implemented. (1) It is not possible to deploy PSOs on the shallow water barge, and training crew members is unrealistic. Quintillion states that the shallow water barge is a small, flat barge with a deck, only a few feet off the water surface, and two modules to house offices and berths. Deck space is small and dangerous, and there is no elevated platform to monitor from. Crew members will be working on the deck at their normal jobs, and will have no time to watch for marine mammals. (2) Quintillion has worked closely with AEWC and other subsistence groups to develop a POC that allows Quintillion to complete their program in 2016, while minimizing impacts to subsistence use. However, if Quintillion cannot complete the work by mid-September in the Beaufort Sea, Quintillion states that it could not afford to conduct aerial surveys and/or use scout vessels for additional monitoring. Furthermore, as stated earlier in Response to Comment 4, NMFS believes that Quintillion's visual and acoustic monitoring plans are robust for its proposed subsea cable-laying activity. Therefore, additional monitoring utilizing aerial surveys and/or scout vessels is not warranted. Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment 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]. Takes by Level B harassments of some species are anticipated as a result of Quintillion's proposed subsea cable-laying operation. NMFS expects marine mammal takes could result from noise propagation from dynamic position thrusters during cable-laying operation. [[Page 40282]] NMFS does not expect marine mammals would be taken by collision with cable and support vessels, because the vessels will be moving at low speeds, and PSOs on the vessels will be monitoring for marine mammals and will be able to alert the vessels to avoid any marine mammals in the area. For non-impulse sounds, such as those produced by the dynamic positioning thrusters during Quintillion's subsea cable-laying operation, NMFS uses the 180 and 190 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth to indicate the onset of Level A harassment for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively; and the 120 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth for Level B harassment of all marine mammals. Quintillion provided calculations of the 120-dB isopleths expected to be produced by the dynamic positioning thrusters during the proposed cable-laying operation to estimate takes by harassment. NMFS used those calculations to make the necessary MMPA findings. Quintillion provided a full description of the methodology used to estimate takes by harassment in its IHA application, which is also provided in the following sections. There is no 180 or 190-dB zone from the planned activities. Noise Sources The planned cable-laying activity is expected to generate underwater noises from several sources, including thrusters, plows, jets, ROVs, echo sounders, and positioning beacons. The predominant noise source and the only underwater noise that is likely to result in take of marine mammals during cable-laying operations is the cavitating noise produced by the thrusters during dynamic positioning of the vessel (Tetra Tech 2014). Cavitation is random collapsing of bubbles produced by the blades. The vessel of Quintillion's contractor Alcatel- Lucent Submarine Networks, the C/S Ile de Brehat, maintains dynamic positioning during cable-laying operations by using two 1,500 kW bow thrusters, two 1,500 kW aft thrusters, and one 1,500 kW fore thruster. Sound source measurements have not been conducted specific to the C/S Ile de Brehat, but other acoustical studies have shown thruster noise measurements ranging between 171 and 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) at 1 m (Nedwell et al. 2003, MacGillivary 2006, Samsung 2009, Hartin et al. 2011, Deepwater Wind 2013, Tetra Tech 2014). Various acoustical investigations in the Atlantic Ocean have modeled distances to the 120-dB isopleth, with results ranging between 1.4 and 3.575 km (Samsung 2009, Deepwater Wind 2013, Tetra Tech 2014) for water depths similar to where Quintillion would be operating in the Arctic Ocean. However, all these ranges were based on conservative modeling that included maximum parameters and worst-case assumptions. 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 C/S Ile de Brehat (1,500 kW). Measured dominant frequencies were 110 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 the same water body where Quintillion's cable-laying operation would occur, as opposed to a conservatively modeled value from the Atlantic Ocean, it is the value used in calculating marine mammal exposure estimates. Sound source levels from the Fugro Synergy during dynamic positioning did not exceed 180 dB, thus there are no Level A harassment or injury concerns. Acoustic Footprint The acoustical footprint (total ensonified area) was determined by assuming that dynamic position would occur along all trunk and branch lines within the proposed fiber optics cable network, regardless of the cable-lay vessel used. The sum total of submerged cable length is 1,902.7 km (1,182.3 mi). Assuming that the radius to the 120-dB isopleth is 2.3 km (1.4 mi) (Hartin et al. 2011), then the total ensonified area represents a swath that is 1,902.7 km (1,182.3 mi) in length and 4.6 km (2.8 mi) in width (2 x 2.3 km) or 8,752.4 km\2\ (3,379.3 mi\2\). The Nome branch (194.7 km [121.0 mi]) and 87.1 km (54.1 mi) of the trunk line between branch unite (BU) Nome and BU Kotzebue fall within the Bering Sea. The combined length of those is 281.8 km (175.1 mi) and the total ensonified area is 1,296.3 km\2\ (500.5 mi\2\). The Oliktok branch (73.9 km [45.9 mi]) and 254.1 km (157.9 mi) of the trunk line between Barrow and Oliktok are found in the Beaufort Sea. Here the combined length is 328 km (203.8 mi) and total ensonified area is 1,508.8 km\2\ (582.6 mi\2\). The remaining area 5,947.3 km\2\ (2,296.3 mi\2\) falls within the Chukchi Sea. Marine Mammal Densities Density estimates for bowhead, gray, and beluga whales were derived from aerial survey data collected in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the 2011 to 2014 Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) program (Clarke et al. 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015). The planned cable routes cross ASAMM survey blocks 2, 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 the 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 are 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), while spotted and bearded seal densities in the Beaufort Sea were developed by assuming both represented 5 percent of ringed seal densities. 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 2 (Chukchi/Bering) and Table 3 (Beaufort) below. The specific parameters used in deriving these estimates are provided in the discussions that follow. Table 2--Marine Mammal Densities (#/km\2\) in the Chukchi and Bering Seas ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Species Summer Fall ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bowhead Whale................................. 0.0025 0.0438 Gray Whale.................................... 0.0680 0.0230 Beluga Whale.................................. 0.0894 0.0632 Harbor Porpoise............................... 0.0022 0.0022 Ringed Seal................................... 0.0846 0.0507 Spotted Seal.................................. 0.0423 0.0253 [[Page 40283]] Bearded Seal.................................. 0.0630 0.0440 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 3--Marine Mammal Densities (#/km\2\) in the Beaufort Sea ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Species Summer Fall ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bowhead Whale................................. 0.0444 0.0742 Gray Whale.................................... 0.0179 0.0524 Beluga Whale.................................. 0.0021 0.0142 Ringed Seal................................... 0.3547 0.2510 Spotted Seal.................................. 0.0177 0.0125 Bearded Seal.................................. 0.0177 0.0125 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bowhead Whale: The summer density estimate for bowhead whales was derived from June, July, and August aerial survey data collected in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea during the 2011 to 2014 ASAMM program (Clarke et al. 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015). 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, which 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 this point. During these four years, 87 bowhead whales were recorded in the three Beaufort Sea blocks during 12,161 km (7,556mi) of summer survey effort (0.0072/ km), and 201 whales during 16,829 km (10,457mi) of fall effort (0.0019/ km). In the five Chukchi Sea survey blocks, 11 bowheads were recorded during 27,183 km (16,891 mi) of summer effort (0.0004/km), and 160 during 22,678 km (14,091 mi) of fall survey (0.0071/km). Applying an effective strip half-width (ESW) of 1.15 (Ferguson and Clarke 2013), and a 0.07 correction factor (Ferguson, personal communication) for whales missed during the surveys, results in corrected densities of 0.0444 (Beaufort summer), 0.0742 (Beaufort fall), 0.0025 (Chukchi summer), and 0.0438 (Chukchi fall) whales per km\2\ (Tables 2 and 3). 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, 35 gray whales were recorded in the three Beaufort Sea blocks during 12,161 km (7,557 mi) of summer survey effort (0.0029/km), and 142 gray whales during 16,829 km (10,457 mi) of fall effort (0.0084/km). In the five Chukchi Sea survey blocks, 298 gray whales were recorded during 27,183 km (16,891 mi) of summer effort (0.0084/km), and 84 during 22,678 km (14,091 mi) of fall survey (0.0037/km). Applying an effective strip half-width (ESW) of 1.15 (Ferguson and Clarke 2013), and a correction factor of 0.07, results in corrected densities of 0.0179 (Beaufort summer), 0.0524 (Beaufort fall), 0.0680 (Chukchi summer), and 0.0230 (Chukchi fall) whales per km\2\ (Tables 2 and 3). Beluga Whale: Beluga whale density estimates were derived from the ASAMM transect data collected from 2011 to 2014 (Clarke et al. 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015). During the summer aerial surveys (June-August) there were 248 beluga whale observed along 3,894 km (2,420 mi) of transect in waters between 21 to 200 m (13-124 ft) deep and between longitudes 154 [deg]W. and 157 [deg]W. This equates to 0.0637 whales/km of trackline and a corrected density of 0.0894 whales per km\2\, assuming an ESW of 0.614 km and a 0.58 correction factor (Ferguson, personal communication). Fall density estimates (September-October) for this region were based on 192 beluga whales seen along 4,267 km (2,651 mi). This equates to 0.0449 whales/km of trackline and a corrected density of 0.0632 whales per km\2\, assuming an ESW of 0.614 km and a 0.58 correction factor. During the summer aerial surveys (June-August), there were 30 beluga whales observed along 20,240 km (12,577 mi) of transect in waters less than 36 to 50 m (22-31 ft) deep and between longitudes 157 [deg]W. and 169 [deg]W. This equates to 0.0015 whales/km of trackline and a corrected density of 0.0021 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 231 beluga whales seen during 22,887 km of transect (1,794 mi). This equates to 0.0101 whales/km and a corrected density of 0.142 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 porpoise 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. Hartin et al.'s (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 2. Ringed and Spotted Seals: Aerts et al. (2014) conducted a marine mammal monitoring program in the northeastern Chukchi Sea in association with oil & gas exploration activities between 2008 and 2013. For seal sightings that were 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. Applying this ratio to the combined densities results in species densities of 0.0846 seals/km\2\ (summer) and 0.0507 seals/km\2\ (fall) for ringed seals, and 0.0423 seals/km\2\ (summer) and 0.0253 seals/km\2\ (fall) for spotted seals. These are the densities used in the exposure calculations (Table 2) and to represent ringed and spotted seal densities for both the northern Bering and Chukchi seas. [[Page 40284]] Moulton and Lawson (2002) conducted summer shipboard-based surveys for pinnipeds along the nearshore Alaskan Beaufort Sea coast, while 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 3). 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 a suitable estimate of the proportion of ringed seals versus spotted seals in the Colville River Delta and Harrison Bay, both areas close to the proposed Oliktok branch line. Thus, the estimated densities of spotted seals in the cable-lay survey area were derived by multiplying the ringed seal densities from Moulton and Lawson (2002) and Kingsley (1986) by 5 percent. Spotted seals are a summer resident in the Beaufort Sea and are generally found in nearshore waters, especially in association with haulout sites at or near river mouths. Their summer density in the Beaufort Sea is a function of distance from these haul out sites. Near Oliktok Point (Hauser et al. 2008, Lomac-McNair et al. 2014) where the Oliktok cable branch will reach shore, they are more common than ringed seals, but they are very uncommon farther offshore where most of the Beaufort Sea cable-lay activity will occur. This distribution of density is taken into account in the take authorization request. Bearded Seal: The most representative estimates of summer and fall density of bearded seals in the northern Bering and Chukchi seas come from the 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 sea cable-lay areas (Table 2). 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 (/km\2\) were determined by multiplying ringed seal density from Moulton and Lawson (2002) and Kingsley (1986) by 5 percent as was done with spotted seals. Level B Exposure Calculations The estimated potential harassment take of local marine mammals by Quintillion's fiber optics cable-lay project was determined by multiplying the seasonal animal densities in Tables 2 and 3 with the seasonal area that would be ensonified by thruster noise greater than 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). The total area that would be ensonified in the Chukchi Sea is 5,947 km\2\ (2,296 mi\2\), and for the Bering Sea is 1,296 km\2\ (500 mi\2\). Since there are no marine mammal density estimates for the northern Bering Sea, the ensonified area was combined with the Chukchi Sea for a total ZOI of 7,243 km\2\ (2,796 mi\2\). The ensonified area for the Beaufort Sea is 1,509 km\2\ (583 mi\2\). Because the cable-laying plan is to begin in the south as soon as ice conditions allow and work northward, the intention is to complete the Bering and Chukchi seas portion of the network (1,575 km, [979 mi]) during the summer (June to August), and Beaufort Sea portion (328 km [204 mi]) during the fall (September and October). Thus, summer exposure estimates apply for the Bering and Chukchi areas and the fall exposure estimates for the Beaufort (Table 4). Table 4--The Authorized Number of Level B Harassment Exposures to Marine Mammals ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exposures Exposures Exposures Species Bering/Chukchi Beaufort total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bowhead Whale................................................... 18 112 130 Gray Whale...................................................... 493 79 572 Beluga Whale.................................................... 648 21 669 Harbor Porpoise................................................. 16 0 16 Ringed Seal..................................................... 613 379 992 Spotted Seal.................................................... 306 19 325 Bearded Seal.................................................... 451 19 470 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The estimated takes of marine mammals are based on the estimated exposures for marine mammals with known density information. For marine mammals whose estimated number of exposures were not calculated due to a lack of reasonably accurate density estimates, but for which occurrence records within the project area exist (i.e., humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, killer whale, and ribbon seal), a small number of takes relatively based on group size and site fidelity have been requested in case they are encountered. A summary of estimated takes is provided in Table 5. Table 5--Level B Take Request as Percentage of Stock ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Request Level Species Stock Level B take B take by abundance authorized stock (%) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bowhead whale................................................... 19,534 130 0.8 Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea stock)............................... 39,258 669 1.7 [[Page 40285]] Beluga whale (E. Chukchi Sea stock)............................. 3,710 669 18.0 Beluga whale (E. Bering Sea stock).............................. 19.186 669 3.5 Gray whale...................................................... 20,990 572 2.7 Humpback whale (W.N. Pacific stock)............................. 1,107 15 1.36 Humpback whale (Cent. N. Pacific stock)......................... 10,103 15 0.14 Fin whale....................................................... 1,652 15 0.91 Minke whale..................................................... 1,233 5 0.40 Killer whale.................................................... 2,347 5 0.21 Harbor porpoise................................................. 48,215 16 0.03 Ringed seal..................................................... 249,000 992 0.49 Spotted seal.................................................... 460,268 325 0.07 Bearded seal.................................................... 155,000 470 0.08 Ribbon seal..................................................... 61,100 5 0.01 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The estimated Level B takes as a percentage of the marine mammal stock are less than 18 percent in all cases (Table 5). The highest percent of population estimated to be taken is 18 percent for Level B harassments of the East Chukchi Sea stock of beluga whale. However, that percentage assumes that all beluga whales taken are from that population. Most likely, some beluga whales would be taken from each of the three stocks, meaning fewer than 669 beluga whales would be taken from any individual stock. The Level B takes of beluga whales as a percentage of populations would likely be below 1.7, 18, and 3.5 percent for the Beaufort Sea, East Chukchi Sea, and East Bering Sea stocks, respectively. Analysis and Determinations Negligible Impact Negligible impact is ``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 Level B harassment 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 behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status of the species. To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 5, given that the anticipated effects of Quintillion's subsea cable-laying operation on marine mammals, taking into account the proposed mitigation, are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are described separately in the analysis below. No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Quintillion's subsea cable-laying operation, and none are authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing impairment (i.e., temporary hearing threshold shift [TTS] or permanent hearing threshold shift [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 of 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 12 marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed cable-laying area, bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as endangered under the ESA. These species are also designated as ``depleted'' under the MMPA. None of the other species that may occur in the project area are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. The project area of the Quintillion's proposed activities is within areas that have been identified as biologically important areas (BIAs) for feeding for the gray and bowhead whales and for reproduction for gray whale during the summer and fall months (Clarke et al. 2015). In addition, the coastal Beaufort Sea also serves as a migratory corridor during bowhead whale spring migration, as well as for their feeding and breeding activities. Additionally, the coastal area of Chukchi and Beaufort seas also serve as BIAs for beluga whales for their feeding and migration. However, Quintillion's proposed cable-laying operation would only briefly transit through the area in a slow speed (600 meters per hour). As discussed earlier, the Level B behavioral harassment of marine mammals from the proposed activity is expected to be brief startling reaction and temporary vacating of the area. There is no long-term biologically significant impact to marine mammals expected from the proposed subsea cable-laying activity. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from Quintillion's proposed subsea cable-laying operation in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas is not expected to adversely affect the affected species or stocks through [[Page 40286]] impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival, and therefore will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks. Small Numbers The requested takes represent less than 18 percent of all populations or stocks potentially impacted (see Table 5 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 likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks. Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses The planned cable-lay activities will 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 varies 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, 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, located 70 km (44 mi) east of Oliktok. Beluga are also annually harvested by the above villages. Beluga harvest is most important to Point Hope. For example, the village harvested 84 beluga whales during the spring of 2012, and averaged 31 whales a year from 1987 to 2006 (Frost and Suydam 2010). Beluga are also important to Wainwright village. 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 a year (Frost and Suydam 2010). All villages utilize 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 planned 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 laying of cable along that branch would occur in late summer or early fall, long after the bearded seal hunt is over. Based on the planned cable-lay time table relative to the seasonal timing of the various subsistence harvests, cable-lay activities into Kotzebue (bearded seal), Wainwright (beluga whale), and around Point Barrow (bowhead whale) could overlap with important harvest periods. Quintillion will work closely with the AEWC, the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, the Ice Seal Committee, and the North Slope Borough to minimize any effects cable-lay activities might have on subsistence harvest. Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence Hunts Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a POC or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. Quintillion has prepared a 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, Quintillion has contracted with Alcatel-Lucent Submarine Networks to furnish and install the cable system. Alcatel- Lucent's vessel, C/S Ile de Brehat, participates in the Automatic Identification System (AIS) vessel tracking system allowing the vessel to be tracked and located in real time. The accuracy and real time availability of AIS information via the web for the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas will not be fully known until the vessels are in the project area. If access to the information is limited, Quintillion will provide alternate vessel information to the public on a regular basis. Quintillion can aid and support the AIS data with additional information provided to the local search and rescue, or other source nominated during the community outreach program. In addition, Quintillion will communicate closely with the communities of Pt. Hope, Pt. Lay, and Wainwright should activities progress far enough north in late June to mid-July when the villages are still engaged with their annual beluga whale hunt. Quintillion will also communicate closely with the communities of Wainwright, Barrow, and Nuiqsut to minimize impacts on the communities' fall bowhead whale subsistence hunts, which typically occur during late September and into October. Prior to starting offshore activities, Quintillion will consult with Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Barrow, and Nuiqsut as well as the North Slope Borough, the Northwest Arctic Borough, and other stakeholders such as the EWC, the AEWC, the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC), and the Alaska Nanuuq Commission (ANC). Quintillion will also engage in consultations with additional groups on request. A copy of the POC can be viewed on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.html. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Within the project area, the bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as endangered under the ESA. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division consulted 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 May 2016, 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 operations in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas during the 2016 open-water season is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered bowhead, humpback, and fin whales. No critical habitat has been designated for these species, therefore none will be affected. [[Page 40287]] National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) that includes an analysis of potential environmental effects associated with NMFS' issuance of an IHA to Quintillion to take marine mammals incidental to conducting subsea cable-laying operations in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The draft EA was available to the public for a 30-day comment period before it was finalized. NMFS has finalized the EA and prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this action. The FONSI was signed in May, prior to this issuance of the IHA. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. 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 in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas during the 2016 open-water season, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: June 16, 2016. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2016-14585 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
![40274 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Notices
activities and to discuss resiliency and For detailed information, please not have an unmitigable adverse impact
reliability topics. The agenda may contact Mr. Nguyen or visit: http:// on the availability of the species or
change to accommodate Committee www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/. stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
business. The final agenda will be relevant), and if the permissible
Kent Rochford,
posted on the Smart Grid Web site at methods of taking and requirements
Associate Director for Laboratory Programs. pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring,
http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid.
[FR Doc. 2016–14580 Filed 6–20–16; 8:45 am] and reporting of such takings are set
Individuals and representatives of BILLING CODE 3510–13–P forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
organizations who would like to offer impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an
comments and suggestions related to the impact resulting from the specified
Committee’s affairs are invited to DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE activity that cannot be reasonably
request a place on the agenda by expected to, and is not reasonably likely
submitting their request to Cuong National Oceanic and Atmospheric to, adversely affect the species or stock
Nguyen at cuong.nguyen@nist.gov or Administration through effects on annual rates of
(301) 975–2254 no later than 5:00 p.m. RIN 0648–XE442 recruitment or survival.’’
Eastern time, Friday, July 1, 2016. On Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
Thursday, July 14, 2016, approximately Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to established an expedited process by
one-half hour will be reserved at the end Specified Activities; Taking Marine which citizens of the United States can
of the meeting for public comments, and Mammals Incidental to Subsea Cable- apply for an authorization to
speaking times will be assigned on a Laying Operations in the Bering, incidentally take small numbers of
first-come, first-serve basis. The amount Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas marine mammals by harassment.
of time per speaker will be determined Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
by the number of requests received, but establishes a 45-day time limit for
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
NMFS’s review of an application
is likely to be about three minutes each. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
followed by a 30-day public notice and
Questions from the public will not be Commerce.
comment period on any proposed
considered during this period. Speakers ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental authorizations for the incidental
who wish to expand upon their oral harassment authorization (IHA). harassment of small numbers of marine
statements, those who had wished to mammals. Within 45 days of the close
speak but could not be accommodated SUMMARY: In accordance with
regulations implementing the Marine of the public comment period, NMFS
on the agenda, and those who were must either issue or deny the
unable to attend in person are invited to Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given authorization.
submit written statements to Mr. Cuong Except with respect to certain
that NMFS has issued an IHA to
Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC
Systems Program Office, National defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of
(Quintillion) to take, by harassment,
Institute of Standards and Technology, pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
small numbers of 12 species of marine
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, has the potential to injure a marine
mammals incidental to a subsea cable-
Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8200; mammal or marine mammal stock in the
laying operation in the state and federal
telephone 301–975–2254, fax 301–948– wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has
waters of the Bering, Chukchi, and
5668; or via email at cuong.nguyen@ the potential to disturb a marine
Beaufort seas, Alaska, during the open-
nist.gov. mammal or marine mammal stock in the
water season of 2016.
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
All visitors to the NIST site are DATES: This authorization is effective patterns, including, but not limited to,
required to pre-register to be admitted. from June 1, 2016 through October 31, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
Anyone wishing to attend this meeting 2016. feeding, or sheltering [Level B
must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: harassment].
Friday, July 1, 2016, in order to attend. Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Please submit your full name, time of Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Summary of Request
arrival, email address, and phone SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 29, 2015, NMFS received
number to Cuong Nguyen. Non-U.S. an IHA application and marine mammal
Background mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP)
citizens must submit additional
information; please contact Mr. Nguyen. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the from Quintillion for the taking of marine
Mr. Nguyen’s email address is MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct mammals incidental to conducting
cuong.nguyen@nist.gov and his phone the Secretary of Commerce to allow, subsea cable-laying activities in the U.S.
number is (301) 975–2254. For upon request, the incidental, but not Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas.
participants attending in person, please intentional, taking of small numbers of After receiving NMFS’ comments on the
note that federal agencies, including marine mammals by U.S. citizens who initial application, Quintillion made
engage in a specified activity (other than revisions and updated its IHA
NIST, can only accept a state-issued
commercial fishing) within a specified application and 4MP on February 3,
driver’s license or identification card for
geographical region if certain findings 2016. NMFS determined that the
access to federal facilities if such license are made and either regulations are application and the 4MP were adequate
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
or identification card is issued by a state issued or, if the taking is limited to and complete on February 5, 2016.
that is compliant with the REAL ID Act harassment, a notice of a proposed NMFS published a notice on March 30,
of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–13), or by a state authorization is provided to the public 2016 (81 FR 17666) making preliminary
that has an extension for REAL ID for review. determinations and proposing to issue
compliance. NIST currently accepts An authorization for incidental an IHA. The notice initiated a 30-day
other forms of federal-issued takings shall be granted if NMFS finds comment period.
identification in lieu of a state-issued that the taking will have a negligible Quintillion proposed to install a
driver’s license. impact on the species or stock(s), will subsea fiber optic network cable along
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:37 Jun 20, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_40393/page/1.svg)
![40280 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Notices
waters of Alaska since 2010 by tracking approach to be selected based on the moderate state of decomposition as
satellite-tagged animals, sampling lower sampling method and data available; described in the next paragraph),
trophic levels and physical and Quintillion would immediately report
oceanography, and passively 6. A clear comparison of authorized the incident to the Chief of the Permits
acoustically monitoring marine mammal takes and the level of actual estimated and Conservation Division, Office of
and vessel activity. takes. Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
The current mooring locations for the The draft report shall be subject to NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or
PAM portion of the joint program align review and comment by NMFS. Any by email to the Alaska Regional
closely with the proposed Quintillion recommendations made by NMFS must Stranding Coordinators. The report
cable-lay route. Operating passive be addressed in the final report prior to would include the same information
acoustic recorders at these locations in acceptance by NMFS. The draft report identified in the paragraph above.
2016 would not only provide will be considered the final report for Activities would be able to continue
information on the distribution and this activity under this Authorization if while NMFS reviews the circumstances
composition of the marine mammal NMFS has not provided comments and of the incident. NMFS would work with
community along the proposed cable- recommendations within 90 days of Quintillion to determine whether
lay route at the time cable-lay activities receipt of the draft report. modifications in the activities would be
would be occurring, but they could also appropriate.
(3) Notification of Injured or Dead In the event that Quintillion discovers
record the contribution of the cable-lay Marine Mammals
activity on the local acoustical a dead marine mammal, and the lead
environment where the route passes In the unanticipated event that the PSO determines that the death is not
close to these stations. specified activity clearly causes the take associated with or related to the
of a marine mammal in a manner activities authorized in the IHA (e.g.,
Reporting Measures prohibited by the IHA, such as a serious previously wounded animal, carcass
(1) Sound Source Verification Report injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, with moderate to advanced
gear interaction, and/or entanglement), decomposition, or scavenger damage),
A report on the preliminary results of Quintillion will immediately cease the Quintillion would report the incident to
the sound source verification specified activities and immediately the Chief of the Permits and
measurements, including the measured report the incident to the Chief of the Conservation Division, Office of
source level, shall be submitted within Permits and Conservation Division, Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
14 days after collection of those Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or
measurements at the start of the field and the Alaska Regional Stranding by email to the Alaska Regional
season. This report will specify the Coordinators. The report would include Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours
distances of the ZOI that were adopted the following information: of the discovery. Quintillion would
for the survey. • Time, date, and location (latitude/ provide photographs or video footage (if
(2) Technical Report (90-Day Report) longitude) of the incident; available) or other documentation of the
• Name and type of vessel involved; stranded animal sighting to NMFS and
A draft report will be submitted to the • Vessel’s speed during and leading the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Director, Office of Protected Resources, up to the incident; Quintillion can continue its operations
NMFS, within 90 days after the end of • Description of the incident; under such a case.
Quintillion’s subsea cable-laying • Status of all sound source use in the
operation in the Bering, Chukchi, and Monitoring Plan Peer Review
24 hours preceding the incident;
Beaufort seas. The report will describe • Water depth; The MMPA requires that monitoring
in detail: • Environmental conditions (e.g., plans be independently peer reviewed
1. Summaries of monitoring effort wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea ‘‘where the proposed activity may affect
(e.g., total hours, total distances, and state, cloud cover, and visibility); the availability of a species or stock for
marine mammal distribution through • Description of all marine mammal taking for subsistence uses’’ (16 U.S.C.
the project period, accounting for sea observations in the 24 hours preceding 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this
state and other factors affecting the incident; requirement, NMFS’ implementing
visibility and detectability of marine • Species identification or regulations state, ‘‘Upon receipt of a
mammals); description of the animal(s) involved; complete monitoring plan, and at its
2. Summaries that represent an initial • Fate of the animal(s); and discretion, [NMFS] will either submit
level of interpretation of the efficacy, • Photographs or video footage of the the plan to members of a peer review
measurements, and observations; animal(s) (if equipment is available). panel for review or within 60 days of
3. Analyses of the effects of various Activities would not resume until receipt of the proposed monitoring plan,
factors influencing detectability of NMFS is able to review the schedule a workshop to review the
marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number circumstances of the prohibited take. plan’’ (50 CFR 216.108(d)).
of observers, and fog/glare); NMFS would work with Quintillion to NMFS convened an independent peer
4. Species composition, occurrence, determine the necessary measures to review panel to review Quintillion’s
and distribution of marine mammal minimize the likelihood of further 4MP for the proposed subsea cable-
sightings, including date, water depth, prohibited take and ensure MMPA laying operation in the Bering, Chukchi,
numbers, age/size/gender categories (if compliance. Quintillion would not be and Beaufort seas. The panel met via
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
determinable), group sizes, and ice able to resume its activities until web conference in early March 2016,
cover; notified by NMFS via letter, email, or and provided comments to NMFS in
5. Estimates of uncertainty in all take telephone. April 2016. The full panel report can be
estimates, with uncertainty expressed In the event that Quintillion discovers viewed on the Internet at: http://
by the presentation of confidence limits, a dead marine mammal, and the lead www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
a minimum-maximum, posterior PSO determines that the cause of the incidental.html.
probability distribution, or another death is unknown and the death is NMFS provided the panel with
applicable method, with the exact relatively recent (i.e., in less than a Quintillion’s IHA application and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:37 Jun 20, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_40393/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Notices 40281
monitoring plan and asked the panel to PSOs cannot be deployed, the panel that Quintillion submitted to NMFS;
answer the following questions: recommends that crew members receive and
1. Will the applicant’s stated PSO training; (5) Conducting SSV measurements on
objectives effectively further the (4) Infra-red systems have improved all noise sources, including noise from
understanding of the impacts of their considerably and should be considered the cable ship during plowing
activities on marine mammals and as an additional monitoring tool for operations, and noise from the
otherwise accomplish the goals stated operations at night or in low visibility nearshore barge during winching,
above? If not, how should the objectives conditions; anchor-handling, and ROV operations.
be modified to better accomplish the (5) If subsea cable-laying operations However, in discussions with
goals above? are not completed by mid-September in Quintillion, NMFS determined that the
2. Can the applicant achieve the the Beaufort Sea, Quintillion should following recommendations from the
stated objectives based on the methods have a contingency plan for monitoring peer-review panel cannot be
described in the plan? potential impacts to marine mammals, implemented.
3. Are there technical modifications to generally, and bowheads specifically. (1) It is not possible to deploy PSOs
the proposed monitoring techniques and Because of the sensitivity of bowheads on the shallow water barge, and training
methodologies proposed by the to anthropogenic sounds and the crew members is unrealistic. Quintillion
applicant that should be considered to importance of the western Beaufort Sea states that the shallow water barge is a
better accomplish their stated as a feeding area, the monitoring plan small, flat barge with a deck, only a few
objectives? should include methods for monitoring feet off the water surface, and two
4. Are there techniques not proposed ‘‘over-the-horizon.’’ This plan might modules to house offices and berths.
by the applicant (i.e., additional include aerial surveys, scout vessels Deck space is small and dangerous, and
monitoring techniques or with PSOs, or some other method. The there is no elevated platform to monitor
methodologies) that should be information collected during this from. Crew members will be working on
considered for inclusion in the monitoring effort, if needed, would be the deck at their normal jobs, and will
applicant’s monitoring program to better very helpful in developing a mitigation have no time to watch for marine
accomplish their stated objectives? and monitoring plan if Quintillion lays mammals.
5. What is the best way for an cable through the remainder of the (2) Quintillion has worked closely
applicant to present their data and Beaufort Sea in the future; with AEWC and other subsistence
results (formatting, metrics, graphics, (6) Quintillion should also have an groups to develop a POC that allows
etc.) in the required reports that are to appropriate communication plan in Quintillion to complete their program in
be submitted to NMFS (i.e., 90-day place to avoid impacting fall hunts of 2016, while minimizing impacts to
report and comprehensive report)? bowhead whales in the Beaufort subsistence use. However, if Quintillion
The peer-review panel report contains (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow) and cannot complete the work by mid-
recommendations that the panel Chukchi seas (Barrow, Wainwright, and September in the Beaufort Sea,
members felt were applicable to the Point Lay), as much as possible; and Quintillion states that it could not afford
Quintillion’s monitoring plans. (7) Quintillion should also ensure all to conduct aerial surveys and/or use
Specifically, the panel recommended sources of noise are included in SSV scout vessels for additional monitoring.
the following: measurements and in its description of Furthermore, as stated earlier in
(1) Additional PAM recorders be anticipated source levels (not just Response to Comment 4, NMFS believes
deployed closer to shore, if possible. thrusters but winches under tension, that Quintillion’s visual and acoustic
This would allow for monitoring of plough hydraulics, active transducers, monitoring plans are robust for its
sounds generated by nearshore cable- jetting, etc.). The ROV includes two jets, proposed subsea cable-laying activity.
laying barges, as well as for detection of and it would be useful to get SSV Therefore, additional monitoring
marine mammals. The panel identified measurements of the ROVs also. utilizing aerial surveys and/or scout
waters near Kotzebue as a high priority NMFS discussed the peer review vessels is not warranted.
for additional acoustic monitoring due panel report and the list of
to the presence of marine mammals Estimated Take by Incidental
recommendations with Quintillion. For Harassment
sensitive to acoustic disturbance, such the aforementioned monitoring
as beluga whales and bearded seals, and measures, NMFS requires and Except with respect to certain
the reliance on those species for Quintillion agrees to implement the activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
subsistence purposes; following: defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of
(2) Quintillion contributes funding to (1) Conducting additional PAM in pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
assist in the analysis of existing data nearshore waters near Kotzebue; has the potential to injure a marine
from passive acoustic monitors (2) Contributing an additional $20,000 mammal or marine mammal stock in the
deployed in 2013–2015 near Kotzebue. funding to assist in the analysis of wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has
These data could serve as a baseline for existing data from passive acoustic the potential to disturb a marine
noise levels and marine mammal monitors deployed in 2013–2015 near mammal or marine mammal stock in the
distribution and vocalization rates Kotzebue; wild by causing disruption of behavioral
during years in which cable-laying (3) Using infra-red systems for marine patterns, including, but not limited to,
activities were not operating. Given mammal monitoring at night or in low migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
financial constraints, the Panel visibility conditions; feeding, or sheltering [Level B
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
recommends funding analyses of these (4) Quintillion is required to have an harassment].
additional PAM data at the expense of appropriate communication plan in Takes by Level B harassments of some
Quintillion’s proposed plan for PSOs to place to avoid impacting fall hunts of species are anticipated as a result of
visually monitor for marine mammals; bowhead whales in the Beaufort Quintillion’s proposed subsea cable-
(3) If possible, PSOs be deployed on (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow) and laying operation. NMFS expects marine
shallow-water barges. If Chukchi seas (Barrow, Wainwright, and mammal takes could result from noise
accommodations are limited, PSOs Point Lay), as much as possible. The propagation from dynamic position
could be deployed on a daily basis. If communication plan is part of the POC thrusters during cable-laying operation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:37 Jun 20, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_40393/page/8.svg)
![40282 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Notices
NMFS does not expect marine mammals 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) at 1 m (Nedwell those is 281.8 km (175.1 mi) and the
would be taken by collision with cable et al. 2003, MacGillivary 2006, Samsung total ensonified area is 1,296.3 km2
and support vessels, because the vessels 2009, Hartin et al. 2011, Deepwater (500.5 mi2). The Oliktok branch (73.9
will be moving at low speeds, and PSOs Wind 2013, Tetra Tech 2014). km [45.9 mi]) and 254.1 km (157.9 mi)
on the vessels will be monitoring for Various acoustical investigations in of the trunk line between Barrow and
marine mammals and will be able to the Atlantic Ocean have modeled Oliktok are found in the Beaufort Sea.
alert the vessels to avoid any marine distances to the 120-dB isopleth, with Here the combined length is 328 km
mammals in the area. results ranging between 1.4 and 3.575 (203.8 mi) and total ensonified area is
For non-impulse sounds, such as km (Samsung 2009, Deepwater Wind 1,508.8 km2 (582.6 mi2). The remaining
those produced by the dynamic 2013, Tetra Tech 2014) for water depths area 5,947.3 km2 (2,296.3 mi2) falls
positioning thrusters during similar to where Quintillion would be within the Chukchi Sea.
Quintillion’s subsea cable-laying operating in the Arctic Ocean. However,
operation, NMFS uses the 180 and 190 all these ranges were based on Marine Mammal Densities
dB (rms) re 1 mPa isopleth to indicate conservative modeling that included
the onset of Level A harassment for maximum parameters and worst-case Density estimates for bowhead, gray,
cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively; assumptions. and beluga whales were derived from
and the 120 dB (rms) re 1 mPa isopleth Hartin et al. (2011) physically aerial survey data collected in the
for Level B harassment of all marine measured dynamic positioning noise Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the
mammals. Quintillion provided from the 104-m (341-ft) Fugro Synergy 2011 to 2014 Aerial Surveys of Arctic
calculations of the 120-dB isopleths operating in the Chukchi Sea while it Marine Mammals (ASAMM) program
expected to be produced by the dynamic was using thrusters (2,500 kW) more (Clarke et al. 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015).
positioning thrusters during the powerful than those used on the C/S Ile The planned cable routes cross ASAMM
proposed cable-laying operation to de Brehat (1,500 kW). Measured survey blocks 2, 11, and 12 in the
estimate takes by harassment. NMFS dominant frequencies were 110 to 140 Beaufort Sea, and blocks 13, 14, 18, 21,
used those calculations to make the Hz, and the measured (90th percentile) and 22 in the Chukchi Sea. Only data
necessary MMPA findings. Quintillion radius to the 120-dB isopleth was 2.3 collected in these blocks were used to
provided a full description of the km (1.4 mi). Because this radius is a estimate densities for bowhead and gray
methodology used to estimate takes by measured value from the same water whales. Beluga densities were derived
harassment in its IHA application, body where Quintillion’s cable-laying from ASAMM data collected for the
which is also provided in the following operation would occur, as opposed to a depth zones between 36 and 50 m (118
sections. There is no 180 or 190-dB zone conservatively modeled value from the and 164 ft) within the Chukchi Sea
from the planned activities. Atlantic Ocean, it is the value used in between longitudes 157 ° and 169 ° W.,
calculating marine mammal exposure and the depth zones between 21 and
Noise Sources estimates. Sound source levels from the 200 m (68.9 and 656.2 ft) in the Beaufort
The planned cable-laying activity is Fugro Synergy during dynamic Sea between longitudes 154 ° and 157 °
expected to generate underwater noises positioning did not exceed 180 dB, thus W. These depth zones reflect the depths
from several sources, including there are no Level A harassment or where most of the cable-lay will occur.
thrusters, plows, jets, ROVs, echo injury concerns. Harbor porpoise densities (Chukchi Sea
sounders, and positioning beacons. The only) are from Hartin et al. (2013), and
predominant noise source and the only Acoustic Footprint
ringed seal densities are from Aerts et
underwater noise that is likely to result The acoustical footprint (total
al. (2014; Chukchi Sea) and Moulton
in take of marine mammals during ensonified area) was determined by
and Lawson (2002; Beaufort Sea).
cable-laying operations is the cavitating assuming that dynamic position would
Spotted and bearded seal densities in
noise produced by the thrusters during occur along all trunk and branch lines
the Chukchi Sea are also from Aerts et
dynamic positioning of the vessel (Tetra within the proposed fiber optics cable
al. (2014), while spotted and bearded
Tech 2014). Cavitation is random network, regardless of the cable-lay
vessel used. The sum total of submerged seal densities in the Beaufort Sea were
collapsing of bubbles produced by the
cable length is 1,902.7 km (1,182.3 mi). developed by assuming both
blades. The vessel of Quintillion’s
Assuming that the radius to the 120-dB represented 5 percent of ringed seal
contractor Alcatel-Lucent Submarine
Networks, the C/S Ile de Brehat, isopleth is 2.3 km (1.4 mi) (Hartin et al. densities. Too few sightings have been
maintains dynamic positioning during 2011), then the total ensonified area made in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas
cable-laying operations by using two represents a swath that is 1,902.7 km for all other marine mammal species to
1,500 kW bow thrusters, two 1,500 kW (1,182.3 mi) in length and 4.6 km (2.8 develop credible density estimates.
aft thrusters, and one 1,500 kW fore mi) in width (2 x 2.3 km) or 8,752.4 km2 The density estimates for the seven
thruster. Sound source measurements (3,379.3 mi2). The Nome branch (194.7 species are presented in Table 2
have not been conducted specific to the km [121.0 mi]) and 87.1 km (54.1 mi) of (Chukchi/Bering) and Table 3 (Beaufort)
C/S Ile de Brehat, but other acoustical the trunk line between branch unite below. The specific parameters used in
studies have shown thruster noise (BU) Nome and BU Kotzebue fall within deriving these estimates are provided in
measurements ranging between 171 and the Bering Sea. The combined length of the discussions that follow.
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES (#/km2) IN THE CHUKCHI AND BERING SEAS
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Species Summer Fall
Bowhead Whale ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.0025 0.0438
Gray Whale ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0680 0.0230
Beluga Whale .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0894 0.0632
Harbor Porpoise ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.0022 0.0022
Ringed Seal ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0846 0.0507
Spotted Seal .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0423 0.0253
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:37 Jun 20, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_40393/page/9.svg)
![40284 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Notices
Moulton and Lawson (2002) Oliktok Point (Hauser et al. 2008, seals in the Chukchi Sea. Therefore, the
conducted summer shipboard-based Lomac-McNair et al. 2014) where the density values in Table 3 (/km2) were
surveys for pinnipeds along the Oliktok cable branch will reach shore, determined by multiplying ringed seal
nearshore Alaskan Beaufort Sea coast, they are more common than ringed density from Moulton and Lawson
while Kingsley (1986) conducted seals, but they are very uncommon (2002) and Kingsley (1986) by 5 percent
surveys here along the ice margin farther offshore where most of the as was done with spotted seals.
representing fall conditions. The ringed Beaufort Sea cable-lay activity will
seal results from these surveys were occur. This distribution of density is Level B Exposure Calculations
used in the exposure estimates (Table taken into account in the take The estimated potential harassment
3). Neither survey provided a good authorization request. take of local marine mammals by
estimate of spotted seal densities. Green Bearded Seal: The most representative
Quintillion’s fiber optics cable-lay
and Negri (2005) and Green et al. (2006, estimates of summer and fall density of
project was determined by multiplying
2007) recorded pinnipeds during bearded seals in the northern Bering and
the seasonal animal densities in Tables
barging activity between West Dock and Chukchi seas come from the Aerts et al.
(2014) monitoring program that ran from 2 and 3 with the seasonal area that
Cape Simpson, and found high numbers
2008 to 2013 in the northeastern would be ensonified by thruster noise
of ringed seal in Harrison Bay, and
Chukchi Sea. During this period the greater than 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms). The
peaks in spotted seal numbers off the
highest summer estimate was 0.063 total area that would be ensonified in
Colville River Delta where a haulout site
seals/km2 (2013) and the highest fall the Chukchi Sea is 5,947 km2 (2,296
is located. Approximately 5 percent of
estimate was 0.044 seals/km2 (2010). mi2), and for the Bering Sea is 1,296 km2
all phocid sightings recorded by Green
These are the values that were used in (500 mi2). Since there are no marine
and Negri (2005) and Green et al. (2006,
developing exposure estimates for this mammal density estimates for the
2007) were spotted seals, which provide
a suitable estimate of the proportion of species for the northern Bering and northern Bering Sea, the ensonified area
ringed seals versus spotted seals in the Chukchi sea cable-lay areas (Table 2). was combined with the Chukchi Sea for
Colville River Delta and Harrison Bay, There are no accurate density a total ZOI of 7,243 km2 (2,796 mi2). The
both areas close to the proposed Oliktok estimates for bearded seals in the ensonified area for the Beaufort Sea is
branch line. Thus, the estimated Beaufort Sea based on survey data. 1,509 km2 (583 mi2).
densities of spotted seals in the cable- However, Stirling et al. (1982) noted Because the cable-laying plan is to
lay survey area were derived by that the proportion of eastern Beaufort begin in the south as soon as ice
multiplying the ringed seal densities Sea bearded seals is 5 percent that of conditions allow and work northward,
from Moulton and Lawson (2002) and ringed seals. Further, Clarke et al. (2013, the intention is to complete the Bering
Kingsley (1986) by 5 percent. 2014) recorded 82 bearded seals in both and Chukchi seas portion of the network
Spotted seals are a summer resident the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during (1,575 km, [979 mi]) during the summer
in the Beaufort Sea and are generally the 2012 and 2013 ASAMM surveys, (June to August), and Beaufort Sea
found in nearshore waters, especially in which represented 5.1 percent of all portion (328 km [204 mi]) during the fall
association with haulout sites at or near their ringed seal and small unidentified (September and October). Thus, summer
river mouths. Their summer density in pinniped sightings (1,586). Bengtson et exposure estimates apply for the Bering
the Beaufort Sea is a function of al. (2005) noted a similar ratio (6 and Chukchi areas and the fall exposure
distance from these haul out sites. Near percent) during spring surveys of ice estimates for the Beaufort (Table 4).
TABLE 4—THE AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF LEVEL B HARASSMENT EXPOSURES TO MARINE MAMMALS
Exposures Exposures Exposures
Species Bering/ Beaufort total
Chukchi
Bowhead Whale ........................................................................................................................... 18 112 130
Gray Whale .................................................................................................................................. 493 79 572
Beluga Whale .............................................................................................................................. 648 21 669
Harbor Porpoise ........................................................................................................................... 16 0 16
Ringed Seal ................................................................................................................................. 613 379 992
Spotted Seal ................................................................................................................................ 306 19 325
Bearded Seal ............................................................................................................................... 451 19 470
The estimated takes of marine lack of reasonably accurate density on group size and site fidelity have been
mammals are based on the estimated estimates, but for which occurrence requested in case they are encountered.
exposures for marine mammals with records within the project area exist A summary of estimated takes is
known density information. For marine (i.e., humpback whale, fin whale, minke provided in Table 5.
mammals whose estimated number of whale, killer whale, and ribbon seal), a
exposures were not calculated due to a small number of takes relatively based
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 5—LEVEL B TAKE REQUEST AS PERCENTAGE OF STOCK
Request
Level B
Stock Level B take
Species take
abundance by stock
authorized (%)
Bowhead whale ........................................................................................................................... 19,534 130 0.8
Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea stock) ............................................................................................. 39,258 669 1.7
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:37 Jun 20, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_40393/page/11.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Notices 40285
TABLE 5—LEVEL B TAKE REQUEST AS PERCENTAGE OF STOCK—Continued
Request
Level B
Stock Level B take
Species take
abundance by stock
authorized (%)
Beluga whale (E. Chukchi Sea stock) ......................................................................................... 3,710 669 18.0
Beluga whale (E. Bering Sea stock) ........................................................................................... 19.186 669 3.5
Gray whale ................................................................................................................................... 20,990 572 2.7
Humpback whale (W.N. Pacific stock) ........................................................................................ 1,107 15 1.36
Humpback whale (Cent. N. Pacific stock) ................................................................................... 10,103 15 0.14
Fin whale ..................................................................................................................................... 1,652 15 0.91
Minke whale ................................................................................................................................. 1,233 5 0.40
Killer whale .................................................................................................................................. 2,347 5 0.21
Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................................................... 48,215 16 0.03
Ringed seal .................................................................................................................................. 249,000 992 0.49
Spotted seal ................................................................................................................................. 460,268 325 0.07
Bearded seal ................................................................................................................................ 155,000 470 0.08
Ribbon seal .................................................................................................................................. 61,100 5 0.01
The estimated Level B takes as a estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, laying area, bowhead, humpback, and
percentage of the marine mammal stock and the status of the species. fin whales are listed as endangered
are less than 18 percent in all cases To avoid repetition, this introductory under the ESA. These species are also
(Table 5). The highest percent of discussion of our analyses applies to all designated as ‘‘depleted’’ under the
population estimated to be taken is 18 the species listed in Table 5, given that MMPA. None of the other species that
percent for Level B harassments of the the anticipated effects of Quintillion’s may occur in the project area are listed
East Chukchi Sea stock of beluga whale. subsea cable-laying operation on marine as threatened or endangered under the
However, that percentage assumes that mammals, taking into account the ESA or designated as depleted under the
all beluga whales taken are from that proposed mitigation, are expected to be MMPA.
population. Most likely, some beluga relatively similar in nature. Where there The project area of the Quintillion’s
whales would be taken from each of the are meaningful differences between proposed activities is within areas that
three stocks, meaning fewer than 669 species or stocks, or groups of species, have been identified as biologically
beluga whales would be taken from any in anticipated individual responses to important areas (BIAs) for feeding for
individual stock. The Level B takes of activities, impact of expected take on the gray and bowhead whales and for
beluga whales as a percentage of the population due to differences in reproduction for gray whale during the
populations would likely be below 1.7, population status, or impacts on habitat, summer and fall months (Clarke et al.
18, and 3.5 percent for the Beaufort Sea, they are described separately in the 2015). In addition, the coastal Beaufort
East Chukchi Sea, and East Bering Sea analysis below. Sea also serves as a migratory corridor
stocks, respectively. No injuries or mortalities are during bowhead whale spring
anticipated to occur as a result of migration, as well as for their feeding
Analysis and Determinations Quintillion’s subsea cable-laying and breeding activities. Additionally,
Negligible Impact operation, and none are authorized. the coastal area of Chukchi and Beaufort
Additionally, animals in the area are not seas also serve as BIAs for beluga
Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact expected to incur hearing impairment whales for their feeding and migration.
resulting from the specified activity that (i.e., temporary hearing threshold shift However, Quintillion’s proposed cable-
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is [TTS] or permanent hearing threshold laying operation would only briefly
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect shift [PTS]) or non-auditory transit through the area in a slow speed
the species or stock through effects on physiological effects. The takes that are (600 meters per hour). As discussed
annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ anticipated and authorized are expected earlier, the Level B behavioral
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact to be limited to short-term Level B harassment of marine mammals from
finding is based on the lack of likely behavioral harassment in the form of the proposed activity is expected to be
adverse effects on annual rates of brief startling reaction and/or temporary brief startling reaction and temporary
recruitment or survival (i.e., population- vacating of the area. vacating of the area. There is no long-
level effects). An estimate of the number Any effects on marine mammals are term biologically significant impact to
of Level B harassment takes, alone, is generally expected to be restricted to marine mammals expected from the
not enough information on which to avoidance of a limited area around proposed subsea cable-laying activity.
base an impact determination. In Quintillion’s proposed activities and Based on the analysis contained
addition to considering estimates of the short-term changes in behavior, falling herein of the likely effects of the
number of marine mammals that might within the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level specified activity on marine mammals
be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral B harassment.’’ Mitigation measures, and their habitat, and taking into
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
harassment, NMFS must consider other such as controlled vessel speed and consideration the implementation of the
factors, such as the likely nature of any dedicated marine mammal observers, proposed monitoring and mitigation
responses (their intensity, duration, will ensure that takes are within the measures, NMFS finds that the total
etc.), the context of any responses level being analyzed. In all cases, the marine mammal take from Quintillion’s
(critical reproductive time or location, effects are expected to be short-term, proposed subsea cable-laying operation
migration, etc.), as well as the number with no lasting biological consequence. in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort
and nature of estimated Level A Of the 12 marine mammal species seas is not expected to adversely affect
harassment takes, the number of likely to occur in the proposed cable- the affected species or stocks through
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:37 Jun 20, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_40393/page/12.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Notices 40287
National Environmental Policy Act agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY The items of discussion in the
(NEPA) INFORMATION. Assessment Process Webinars are as
NMFS prepared an Environmental follows:
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 1. Using datasets and initial
Assessment (EA) that includes an via Webinar. The Webinar is open to
analysis of potential environmental assessment analysis recommended from
members of the public. Those interested the Data Workshop, panelists will
effects associated with NMFS’ issuance in participating should contact Julie A.
of an IHA to Quintillion to take marine employ assessment models to evaluate
Neer at SEDAR (see Contact Information stock status, estimate population
mammals incidental to conducting Below) to request an invitation
subsea cable-laying operations in the benchmarks and management criteria,
providing Webinar access information. and project future conditions.
Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The Please request Webinar invitations at 2. Participants will recommend the
draft EA was available to the public for least 24 hours in advance of each most appropriate methods and
a 30-day comment period before it was Webinar. configurations for determining stock
finalized. NMFS has finalized the EA SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place status and estimating population
and prepared a Finding of No Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC parameters.
Significant Impact (FONSI) for this 29405. Although non-emergency issues not
action. The FONSI was signed in May, contained in this agenda may come
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
prior to this issuance of the IHA. before this group for discussion, those
Therefore, preparation of an A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571–
4366; email: Julie.neer@safmc.net. issues may not be the subject of formal
Environmental Impact Statement is not action during this meeting. Action will
necessary. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
be restricted to those issues specifically
Authorization Agenda identified in this notice and any issues
As a result of these determinations, The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, arising after publication of this notice
NMFS has issued an IHA to Quintillion and Caribbean Fishery Management that require emergency action under
for the take of marine mammals, by Councils, in conjunction with NOAA section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Level B harassment, incidental to Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf Fishery Conservation and Management
conducting subsea cable-laying States Marine Fisheries Commissions Act, provided the public has been
operations in the Bering, Chukchi, and have implemented the Southeast Data, notified of the intent to take final action
Beaufort seas during the 2016 open- Assessment and Review (SEDAR) to address the emergency.
water season, provided the previously process, a multi-step method for Special Accommodations
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and determining the status of fish stocks in These meetings are physically
reporting requirements are incorporated. the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi- accessible to people with disabilities.
Dated: June 16, 2016. step process including: (1) Data Requests for sign language
Donna S. Wieting,
Workshop; (2) Assessment Process interpretation or other auxiliary aids
utilizing Webinars; and (3) Review should be directed to the Council office
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Workshop. The product of the Data (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days
Workshop is a data report that compiles prior to each workshop.
[FR Doc. 2016–14585 Filed 6–20–16; 8:45 am]
and evaluates potential datasets and
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
recommends which datasets are Note: The times and sequence specified in
this agenda are subject to change.
appropriate for assessment analyses.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The product of the Assessment Process Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
is a stock assessment report that
Dated: June 16, 2016.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric describes the fisheries, evaluates the
status of the stock, estimates biological Tracey L. Thompson,
Administration
benchmarks, projects future population Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
RIN 0648–XE688 conditions, and recommends research Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
and monitoring needs. The assessment [FR Doc. 2016–14590 Filed 6–20–16; 8:45 am]
Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico;
is independently peer reviewed at the BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Southeast Data, Assessment, and
Review Workshop. The product of the
Review (SEDAR); Assessment Webinar
Review Workshop is a Summary
for Gulf of Mexico Data-Limited DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
documenting panel opinions regarding
Species
the strengths and weaknesses of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries stock assessment and input data.
Administration
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Participants for SEDAR Workshops are
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South RIN 0658–XE690
Commerce. Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery
Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries of the South Atlantic;
ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 49 Assessment
Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Southeast Data, Assessment, and
Webinar I for Gulf of Mexico Data-
HMS Management Division, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting
Limited Species.
Southeast Fisheries Science Center.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
SUMMARY: The SEDAR 49 assessment of Participants include data collectors and Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
the Gulf of Mexico Data-Limited Species database managers; stock assessment Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
will consist of a data workshop, a scientists, biologists, and researchers; Commerce.
review workshop, and a series of constituency representatives including ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 50 Stock ID
Assessment Webinars. fishermen, environmentalists, and Work Group Post-Meeting Webinar.
DATES: The SEDAR 49 Assessment NGO’s; International experts; and staff
Webinar I will be held on Tuesday, July of Councils, Commissions, and state and SUMMARY: The SEDAR 50 assessment(s)
12, 2016, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. For federal agencies. of the Atlantic stock(s) of blueline
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:37 Jun 20, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_40393/page/14.svg)
Document Created: 2016-06-21 01:30:33
Document Modified: 2016-06-21 01:30:33
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). | |
| Dates | This authorization is effective from June 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016. | |
| Contact | Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 40274 | |
| RIN Number | 0648-XE44 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR