Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears in Alaska and Associated Federal Waters, 25304-25322 [2017-11381]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 104 (Thursday, June 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25304-25322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11381]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R7-ES-2017-N065; FF07CAMM00-FX-FXEX111607MRG01]


Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; 
Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for Pacific Walruses and 
Polar Bears in Alaska and Associated Federal Waters

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental 
harassment authorization; availability of draft environmental 
assessment; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a 
request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, 
from Quintillion Subsea Operation, LLC, propose to authorize the 
incidental taking by harassment of small numbers of Pacific walruses 
and polar bears from July 1 to November 15, 2017. The applicant has 
requested this authorization for its planned fiber optic cable-laying 
activities. The area specified for inclusion in the proposed 
authorization includes Federal waters of the northern Bering, Chukchi, 
and western portions of the southern Beaufort Seas, the marine waters 
of the State of Alaska, and coastal land adjacent to Nome, Kotzebue, 
Point Hope, Wainwright, Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow), and Oliktok Point, 
as shown in Figure 1. We anticipate no take by injury or death and 
include none in this proposed authorization, which if

[[Page 25305]]

finalized, will be for take by harassment only.

DATES: We will consider comments we receive on or before July 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: 
    Document availability: The incidental harassment authorization 
request, associated draft environmental assessment, and literature 
cited are available for viewing at https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm.
    Comments submission: You may submit comments on the proposed 
incidental harassment authorization and associated draft environmental 
assessment by one of the following methods:
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attention: Ms. Kimberly Klein, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 341, 
1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503;
     Fax: (907) 786-3816, Attention: Ms. Kimberly Klein; or
     Email comments to: FW7_AK_Marine_Mammals@fws.gov.
    Please indicate whether your comments apply to the proposed 
incidental harassment authorization or the draft environmental 
assessment. We will post all comments on https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm. See Request for Public Comments below for more 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the application, the list of 
references used in the notice, and other supporting materials may be 
downloaded from the web at: https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm. You may also contact Ms. Kimberly Klein by mail at Marine 
Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 341, 1011 East 
Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; by email at kimberly_klein@fws.gov; or 
by telephone at 1-800-362-5148, to request documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to a request from Quintillion 
Subsea Operation, LLC (Quintillion or ``the applicant''), we propose to 
authorize the incidental taking by harassment of small numbers of 
Pacific walruses and polar bears from July 1 to November 15, 2017, 
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 
(MMPA), as amended. Quintillion has requested this authorization for 
its planned cable-laying activities in Federal waters of the northern 
Bering, Chukchi, and western portions of the southern Beaufort Seas, 
the marine waters of the State of Alaska, and coastal land adjacent to 
Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Utqiagvik, and Oliktok Point, 
as specified in Figure 1. We anticipate no take by injury or death and 
include none in this proposed authorization, which, if finalized, would 
be for take by harassment only.

Executive Summary

Why We Need To Publish a Draft Incidental Harassment Authorization 
(IHA)

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to allow, upon request, 
and for periods of not more than 1 year, the incidental but not 
intentional take of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 
who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) 
within a specified geographical area if certain findings are made 
regarding the effects of the take. The Service has received a petition 
from Quintillion to provide authorization for the incidental take by 
harassment of Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and polar 
bears (Ursus maritimus) for a cable-laying project that is intended to 
improve broadband internet service in northern Alaska. The project is a 
continuation of work begun in 2016. The MMPA directs the Service to 
provide opportunity for public comment prior to finalizing this 
authorization.

The Effect of This Authorization

    The MMPA allows the Service to authorize, upon request, the 
incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals as part of a 
specified activity within a specified geographic region. In this case, 
the Service may authorize the incidental, but not intentional, take by 
harassment of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears by 
Quintillion during the specified cable-laying project activities if we 
determine that such harassment during each period will:
     Have no more than a ``negligible impact'' on the species 
or stock of Pacific walruses and polar bears; and
     Not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the 
availability of Pacific walruses and polar bears for taking for 
subsistence uses by coastal dwelling Alaska Natives.

If we make these determinations, the Service shall prescribe, where 
applicable:
     Permissible methods of taking by harassment pursuant to 
the proposed activity;
     Other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
Pacific walruses and polar bears and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of Pacific walruses and polar 
bears for taking for subsistence uses by coastal dwelling Alaska 
Natives; and
     Requirements for the monitoring and reporting of the 
taking of Pacific walruses and polar bears by harassment during the 
proposed activities.

Request for Public Comments

    We intend that this authorization, if finalized, will be as 
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments 
or suggestions on this proposed authorization. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
     Whether the proposed authorization, including the proposed 
activities, will have a negligible impact on the species or stocks of 
Pacific walrus or polar bear.
     Whether the proposed authorization will ensure that an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of Pacific walruses or 
polar bears for subsistence taking does not occur.
     The appropriateness of the permissible methods of taking 
by harassment pursuant to the proposed activity.
     The appropriateness, effectiveness, and practicability of 
mitigation measures and other means of effecting the least practicable 
impact on Pacific walruses and polar bears and their habitat.
     The appropriateness, effectiveness, and practicability of 
requirements for the monitoring and reporting of the taking of Pacific 
walruses and polar bears by harassment during the proposed activities.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
authorization by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit a comment via FW7_AK_Marine_Mammals@fws.gov, your 
entire comment--including any personal identifying information--may be 
made available to the public. If you submit a hardcopy comment that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all comments on https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm.

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
1371(a)(5)(D)), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (the 
Secretary) to allow, upon request of a citizen and subject to such 
conditions as the Secretary may specify, the incidental but not 
intentional taking by harassment of small numbers of marine

[[Page 25306]]

mammals of a species or population stock by such citizens who are 
engaging in a specified activity within a specified region. Incidental 
taking may be authorized only if the Secretary finds that such take 
during each period concerned will have a negligible impact on such 
species or stock and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of such species or stock for subsistence use.
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a process by which 
citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization for 
incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals where the take will 
be limited to harassment during a period of not more than 1 year. We 
refer to these incidental harassment authorizations as ``IHAs.''
    The term ``take,'' as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt, 
capture, or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any 
marine mammal. Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, means any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: (i) Has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (the MMPA calls this 
``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 (the MMPA calls 
this ``Level B harassment'').
    The terms ``small numbers,'' ``negligible impact,'' and 
``unmitigable adverse impact'' are defined in title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 18.27, the Service's regulations 
governing take of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to 
specified activities. ``Small numbers'' is defined as a portion of a 
marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a negligible 
impact on that species or stock. However, we do not rely on that 
definition here, as it conflates the terms ``small numbers'' and 
``negligible impact,'' which we recognize as two separate and distinct 
requirements. Instead, in our small numbers determination, we evaluate 
whether the number of marine mammals likely to be taken is small 
relative to the size of the overall population. ``Negligible impact'' 
is defined 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. ``Unmitigable adverse impact'' is defined 
as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely 
to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a 
harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the marine mammals to 
abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing subsistence 
users, or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals 
and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot be sufficiently 
mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine 
mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    In order to issue an IHA, the Service must, where applicable, set 
forth the following: (1) Permissible methods of taking; (2) means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance; and (3) requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such takings. Habitat areas of significance 
for Pacific walruses in the project area include marginal sea-ice 
zones, important feeding areas, and terrestrial haulouts. Habitat areas 
of significance for polar bears include den sites, sea-ice, barrier 
islands, and areas free from sources of disturbance.

Summary of Request

    On November 28, 2016, Quintillion submitted a request to the 
Service for the nonlethal taking by Level B harassment of Pacific 
walruses and polar bears that may occur incidental to the completion of 
a cable-laying project begun in 2016. An amended request was received 
on January 19, 2017, and additional project information was received on 
February 10, 2017.
    Most of this project was completed in 2016, and the Service issued 
an IHA on August 11, 2016, after opportunity for public comment (81 FR 
40902, June 23, 2016) in response to Quintillion's request at that 
time, however, additional work is needed to complete the project. The 
proposed work will occur during the summer/fall open-water season of 
2017 and will include installation of 76 kilometers (km) (47 miles 
(mi)) of cable north of Oliktok Point in the Beaufort Sea, testing 
along the entire cable route, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of 
any areas that do not meet testing requirements.
    Quintillion is requesting incidental take by Level B harassment of 
250 Pacific walruses and 20 polar bears from disruption of behavioral 
patterns and exposure to sound levels exceeding 160 decibels (dB). All 
dB levels are referenced to 1 [mu]Pa for underwater sound. All dB 
levels herein are dBRMS unless otherwise noted; 
dBRMS refers to the root-mean-squared dB level, the square 
root of the average of the squared sound pressure level over some 
duration (typically 1 second). All sound source levels reported herein 
are as measured at 1 m (3 ft) from the source.
    Prior to issuing an IHA, the Service must evaluate the level of 
activities described in the application, the potential impacts to 
Pacific walruses and polar bears, and the potential effects on the 
availability of these species for subsistence use. Complete copies of 
Quintillion's request and supporting documents are available at: https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm.

Description of the Specified Activities and Geographic Area

    In 2016, Quintillion installed fiber optic cable in the marine 
waters of the northern Bering, Chukchi, and southwestern Beaufort Seas, 
in waters of the State of Alaska, and on coastal land of Alaska (Figure 
1). Quintillion plans to complete the project in 2017. When completed, 
the subsea fiber optic cable network will link with an existing 
terrestrial[hyphen]based system to provide high-speed internet to six 
rural Alaska communities. The project will consist of 1,904 km (1,183 
mi) of submerged cable, including a main trunk line and six branch 
lines to onshore facilities in Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, 
Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow), and Oliktok Point. Oliktok Point is 
located 260 km (162 mi) southeast of Point Barrow. This line will 
connect over land with the community of Nuiqsut and the Prudhoe Bay 
industrial center. Additional project details are available in 
Quintillion's IHA application, available online at https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm.

[[Page 25307]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN17.020

    The 2016 program successfully installed the vast majority (96 
percent) of the cable, but did not complete the entire project. Work 
scheduled for the 2017 season includes installation of 76 km (47 mi) of 
cable along the Oliktok branch line, system testing, and O&M. The O&M 
activities will occur along portions of the cable that do not meet 
testing requirements and will involve inspecting, retrieving, 
repairing, and reburying cable. The O&M work will also include 
placement of up to four 6-meter (m) by 3-m (20-foot (ft) by 10-ft) 
concrete mattresses to protect cable splices from ice scour.
    Activities associated with the project, including mobilization, 
preliminary work, cable laying, O&M, post-burial work, and 
demobilization of survey and support crews are planned to occur June 1-
November 15, 2017. Work may occur day or night and will begin in the 
summer as soon as sea-ice conditions allow. Project vessels will not 
pass through or work in the Chukchi Sea prior to July 1, 2017. 
Therefore, encounters with Pacific walruses and polar bears in June are 
unlikely.
    Cable laying along the Oliktok branch line will use a variety of 
vessels and tools, depending on water depth. Vessels include a cable 
ship and a support vessel, shallow draft barges, and tugs. Equipment 
includes a sea plow, vibro plow, and a submerged remote operating 
vehicle (ROV). Cable components will include the cable, interconnecting 
hardware, and repeaters. Echo sounders, transceivers, and transponders 
will monitor the water depth and the position of equipment on the 
seafloor.
    The onshore cable landing at Oliktok Point was completed in 2016 
and included a segment of horizontal directionally drilled (HDD) pipe 
to connect the subsea cable with the land-based facilities. In shallow 
nearshore waters between the HDD pipe and approximately 6.5 km (4 mi) 
from shore, cable will be placed in a trench dug by a vibro plow. The 
vibro plow will be pulled by a construction barge (the Crowley 218 or 
similar). Maximum trenching speed is 1.6 km per hour (km/h) (0.6 mi per 
hour (mi/h) or 0.54 knots (kn)). The construction barge will winch 
itself along the route using moored anchor lines. The anchors will be 
placed by a derrick operating from the deck of a small pontoon barge. A 
small river tug will maneuver the pontoon barge into position. The 
pontoon barge and river tug will also be used to retrieve the anchors 
after the cable is laid.
    In deeper water, between approximately 6.5-16.5 km (4-10.3 mi) from 
shore, work will be conducted from the construction barge pulling the 
vibro plow and winching itself along anchor lines in the same manner as 
for the shallow-water work. However, in this section, a larger ocean-
class tug (the Vos Thalia or a similar tug) will be used to place and 
move the anchors.
    In offshore areas, including along approximately 60 km (37 mi) of 
the Oliktok line, the cable will be laid by the Ile de Batz or a 
similar vessel (Ile de Sein, CB Networker, or Ile de Brehat). The ship 
is 140 m (460 ft) in length and 23 m (77 ft) in breadth, with berths 
for a crew of 70. It pulls a sea plow that cuts a trench while cable is 
fed through a depressor that pushes it into the trench. Prior to laying 
cable, seafloor sediment may be loosened by making multiple passes with 
the sea plow (this activity is termed ``pre-trenching''). The normal 
speed during plowing and pre-trenching is approximately 0.6 km/h (0.37 
mi/h or 0.32 kn).
    The Ile de Batz will also perform O&M operations along the entire 
system, including the main trunk line and six

[[Page 25308]]

branch lines. Recovery and repair of faulty cable sections include 
retrieving the cable, repairing it aboard the ship, and if required, 
reburying the cable. Cable trenches should fill in by natural current 
processes, but Quintillion will ensure that cable splices and 
interconnections are fully buried. It is not possible to determine the 
amount of cable to be retrieved or reburied prior to testing, but could 
involve several km for each fault repair. Quintillion provided a 
maximum estimate of up to 125 km (78 mi) of cable repair or reburial 
work for the entire project. Based on O&M needs for other projects, 
this estimate also includes a buffer for possible complications due to 
the Arctic environment.
    Quintillion proposes to conduct limited ice management, if needed. 
Cable laying cannot be done in the presence of ice due to safety 
concerns, but Quintillion hopes to begin work on the Oliktok branch as 
soon as possible after the seasonal retreat of sea-ice from Alaska's 
northern coast. The Ile de Batz must transit past Point Barrow for this 
work. Since 2007, breakup of coastal sea-ice along much of Alaska's 
North Slope has occurred in June, but a persistent ice field north of 
Point Barrow often remains into July. Ice could also reappear during 
the season or at the end of the season. Quintillion proposes to 
traverse broken ice around Point Barrow with the aid of an ice tug 
that, if needed, will maneuver a path through the ice field. The tug 
will clear a path for the cable ship by pushing individual ice floes 
aside. Ice management will only occur during an approximately 50-km 
(31-mi) transit past Point Barrow or in the event of unexpected safety 
concerns.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activity

Pacific Walruses

    The stock of Pacific walruses is composed of a single panmictic 
population inhabiting the shallow continental shelf waters of the 
Bering and Chukchi Seas (Lingqvist et al. 2009; Berta and Churchill 
2012). The size of the stock is historically uncertain. In 2006, the 
U.S. and Russian Federation (Russia) conducted a joint aerial survey in 
the pack ice of the Bering Sea using thermal imaging systems and 
satellite transmitters to count Pacific walruses in the water and 
hauled out on sea-ice. The number within the surveyed area was 
estimated at 129,000 with a 95 percent confidence interval (CI) of 
55,000 to 507,000 individuals. This estimate is considered a minimum; 
weather conditions forced termination of the survey before large areas 
were surveyed (Speckman et al. 2011).
    Pacific walrus distribution is largely influenced by the extent of 
the seasonal pack ice and prey densities. From April through June, most 
of the population migrates from the Bering Sea through the Bering 
Strait and into the Chukchi Sea. Pacific walruses tend to migrate into 
the Chukchi Sea along lead systems that develop in the sea-ice. During 
the open-water season, Pacific walruses are closely associated with the 
edge of the seasonal pack ice as it retreats northward between Russian 
waters to areas west of Point Barrow, Alaska. Most of these animals 
remain in the Chukchi Sea throughout the summer months, but a few 
occasionally range into the Beaufort Sea. Oil and gas industry 
observers reported 35 walrus sightings east of Point Barrow 
(approximately 156.5[deg] W.) from 1995 through 2012 (Kalxdorff and 
Bridges 2003; AES Alaska 2015; USFWS unpublished data).
    Pacific walruses typically occupy in waters of 100 m (328 ft) depth 
or less although they are capable of diving to greater depths. When 
available, they use sea-ice as a resting platform over feeding areas, 
as well as for giving birth, nursing, passive transportation, and 
avoiding predators (Fay 1982; Ray et al. 2006). Benthic invertebrates 
are their primary prey, but Alaska Native hunters have reported some 
Pacific walruses preying on seals, while fish and birds are also 
occasionally consumed (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009; Seymour et al. 
2014). Foraging trips from sea-ice or terrestrial haulouts may last for 
several days, during which the animals dive to the bottom and feed 
nearly continuously. Foraging dives typically last 5-10 minutes, with 
surface intervals of 1-2 minutes. Disturbance of the sea floor by 
foraging Pacific walruses, known as bioturbation, releases nutrients 
into the water column, provides food for scavenger organisms, 
contributes to the diversity of the benthic community, and is thought 
to have a significant influence on the ecology of the Bering and 
Chukchi Seas (Ray et al. 2006). Bivalve clams of the genera Macoma, 
Serripes, and Mya appear to be the most important prey based on both 
stomach contents and prey availability at Pacific walrus feeding areas 
(Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009).
    Hanna Shoal is the most important foraging area known for Pacific 
walruses in the eastern Chukchi Sea (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991; 
MacCracken 2012; Jay et al. 2012). The unique bathymetric and current 
patterns at Hanna Shoal deposit nutrients from the Bering Sea on the 
ocean floor where they feed a rich benthic ecosystem. Jay et al. (2012) 
tracked radio-tagged Pacific walruses to estimate areas of foraging and 
occupancy in the Chukchi Sea during June-November of 2008-2011 (years 
when sea-ice was sparse over the continental shelf) and observed high 
use areas in the relatively shallow waters of Hanna Shoal. Based on 
this information, the Service designated 24,600 km\2\ (9,500 mi\2\) of 
the Chukchi Sea as the Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area (HSWUA).
    Pacific walruses are gregarious animals. They travel and haul out 
onto ice or land in groups, and spend approximately 20-30 percent of 
their time out of the water. Hauled-out animals tend to be in close 
physical contact. Young animals often lie on top of adults. The size of 
the hauled-out groups can range from a few animals to several thousand 
individuals. The largest aggregations occur at land haulouts. Use of 
terrestrial haulouts in the eastern Chukchi Sea by large numbers has 
been common during recent years of low summer sea-ice. At these times 
the edge of the pack ice moves north into the Arctic Basin where the 
water depth is too great for Pacific walruses to feed. In recent years, 
the barrier islands north of Point Lay have held large aggregations of 
up to 20,000 to 40,000 animals in late summer and fall (Monson et al. 
2013). Pacific walruses hauled out near Point Lay are known to travel 
to Hanna Shoal and back for feeding forays.
    The pack ice usually advances rapidly southward in late fall, and 
most Pacific walruses return with it, arriving in the Bering Sea by 
mid- to late-November. During the winter breeding season, concentration 
areas form in the Bering Sea where open leads, polynyas (an area of 
open water surrounded by sea-ice), or thin ice occur (Fay et al. 1984; 
Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). Detailed information on the biology and 
status of the species is available at https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/.

Polar Bears

    Polar bears are distributed throughout the circumpolar Arctic 
region. The total world population is estimated to be 26,000 (95 
percent CI = 22,000-31,000; Wiig et al. 2015). In Alaska, polar bears 
have historically been observed as far south in the Bering Sea as St. 
Matthew Island and the Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971). Two subpopulations, 
or stocks, occur in Alaska, the Chukchi Sea (CS) stock and the Southern 
Beaufort Sea (SBS) stock. An extensive area of overlap between the CS 
and SBS stocks occurs between Point Barrow and Point

[[Page 25309]]

Hope (Amstrup et al. 2004; Obbard et al. 2010; Wiig et al. 2015). Polar 
bears in this area may be from either stock (Amstrup et al. 2004). A 
detailed description of the CS and SBS stocks is found in USFWS (2017).
    The SBS stock is shared with Canada and had an estimated size of 
approximately 900 bears in 2010 (90 percent CI = 606-1212; Bromaghin et 
al. 2015). This represents a 25-50 percent reduction from previous 
estimates of approximately 1,800 in 1986 (Amstrup et al. 1986), and 
1,526 in 2006 (Regehr et al. 2006). Analyses of over 20 years of data 
on the size and body condition of bears in this subpopulation 
demonstrated declines for most sex and age classes (Rode et al. 2010a). 
Declines in body condition have occurred concurrently with reductions 
in annual sea-ice availability (Rode et al. 2010a, 2012). Reductions in 
summer sea-ice extent may be associated with low prey abundance or 
limited access to prey (Bromaghin et al. 2015).
    The CS stock is shared with Russia. The most recent abundance 
estimate, based on expert opinion and extrapolation of denning surveys 
on Wrangel Island in Russia, was 2,000 bears in 2002 (PBSG 2002). The 
current status and trend of the CS stock are unknown due to a lack of 
data. A comparison of data from the period 1986-1994 with data from the 
period 2008-2011 indicated that polar bears from the CS maintained 
similar body condition and productivity (e.g., number of yearlings per 
female) between those periods despite declines in sea-ice (Rode et al. 
2014).
    Polar bears depend on sea-ice for a number of purposes, including 
as a platform from which to hunt and feed. Polar bears are typically 
most abundant near the ice edges or openings in the ice over relatively 
shallow continental shelf waters with high marine productivity (Durner 
et al. 2004). Their primary prey is ringed (Pusa hispida) and bearded 
seals (Erignathus barbatus), although diet varies regionally with prey 
availability (Thiemann et al. 2008, Cherry et al. 2011). Typically, 
polar bears remain on the sea-ice throughout the year or spend only 
short periods on land, where they will opportunistically scavenge or 
feed on beached marine mammal carcasses (Kalxdorff and Fischbach 1998). 
Remains of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) made available following 
subsistence harvest by Alaska Native communities is an important food 
source for some polar bears, and may comprise up to 70 percent of the 
fall diet (Rogers et al. 2015). Although polar bears have been observed 
using terrestrial foods such as blueberries (Vaccinium sp.), snow geese 
(Anser caerulescens), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus), prolonged 
consumption of terrestrial foods by polar bears is linked with declines 
in body condition and survival (Rode et al. 2015a). These alternate 
foods cannot replace the energy-dense diet polar bears obtain from 
marine mammals (e.g., Derocher et al. 2004; Rode et al. 2010b; Smith et 
al. 2010b).
    Seasonal polar bear distribution and movement patterns are linked 
to changes in sea-ice habitat; future patterns may differ from those of 
the past (Durner et al. 2007; Rode et al. 2014; Wilson et al. 2016). 
Historically, in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea areas, less than 10 
percent of the polar bear locations obtained via radio telemetry were 
on land (Amstrup 2000; Amstrup, U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished 
data). However, in recent years, the proportion of time spent on land 
and the number of bears observed using the coastal areas has increased, 
particularly during the summer and fall (Schliebe et al. 2008, Rode et 
al. 2015b, Atwood et al. 2016b). This is most likely due to the retreat 
of the sea-ice beyond the continental shelf and the associated increase 
in open water during the summer and early fall (Zhang and Walsh 2006; 
Serreze et al. 2007; Stroeve et al. 2007). Once sea-ice concentration 
drops below 50 percent, polar bears tend to abandon sea-ice for land. 
Alternately, bears may retreat northward with the consolidated pack ice 
over the deep water of the polar basin. In both instances, polar bears 
are likely to find limited prey and may reduce their activity levels 
and lower body temperatures to save energy (Whiteman et al. 2015).
    Diminished sea-ice cover also increases the areas of open water 
across which polar bears must swim to reach land or remaining sea-ice. 
As areas of unconsolidated ice increase and movement patterns of sea-
ice change, some bears are also likely to lose contact with the main 
body of ice. These bears may be more likely to drift into unsuitable 
habitat and attempt to swim long distances to return (Sahanatien and 
Derocher 2012). Researchers have observed that in some cases bears that 
swim long distances during the open water period may become vulnerable 
to exhaustion and storms (Durner et al. 2011; Pagano et al. 2012).
    Climate change may also affect the movement patterns and 
reproductive success of polar bears. Pregnant females will seek out den 
sites on land or on multiyear sea-ice where accumulation of snow is 
sufficient for construction of a well-insulated den. Pregnant females 
typically enter maternity dens by late November and emerge with cubs in 
late March or April. Pregnant females are the only polar bears that den 
for an extended period during the winter; others may excavate temporary 
shelter to escape harsh winter winds. In Alaska, denning habitat is 
frequently located on barrier islands, riverbank drainages, and coastal 
bluffs. For a pregnant polar bear to reach denning areas on land, pack 
ice must drift close enough or must freeze sufficiently early to allow 
her to walk or swim to shore in the fall (Derocher et al. 2004). 
Distance to the ice edge is thought to be a factor limiting denning on 
the coast of western Alaska by bears from the CS stock (Rode et al. 
2015b). In recent years, fewer dens have been found on pack ice, 
suggesting that these changes may be making pack ice less suitable for 
maternal denning (Fischbach et al. 2007; Rode et al. 2015b). Climate 
projections indicate continued loss of multiyear ice in summer and the 
possibility of total loss of summer sea-ice in the near future (Holland 
et al. 2006). These conditions may further limit or eliminate maternity 
denning on pack ice (Stirling and Derocher 2012).
    In 2008, the Service listed the polar bear as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) due to impacts from climate change. Climate change in the Arctic, 
driven by increasing atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic 
greenhouse gases, is the primary threat to polar bears, and is expected 
to impact polar bears in a variety of ways. These impacts include 
reduced sea-ice and a related decrease in prey and seal hunting habitat 
(Atwood et al. 2015). Reductions in sea-ice are expected to increase 
the polar bears' energetic costs of traveling, since moving through 
fragmented sea-ice and swimming in open water requires more energy than 
walking across consolidated sea-ice (Cherry et al. 2009, Pagano et al. 
2012, Rode et al. 2014). Bromaghin et al. 2015 linked declines in 
summer sea-ice to reduced physical condition, growth, and survival of 
polar bears. Projections indicate continued climate warming through the 
end of this century and beyond (IPCC 2014). The long-term consequences 
for polar bear populations are uncertain but under unabated greenhouse 
gas emissions, demographic models project a high probability of 
population decline throughout the Arctic (Atwood et al. 2015).
    The Service recently completed a 5-Year status review for the polar 
bear (USFWS 2017). It concludes that new information continues to 
support that polar bears rely heavily on sea-ice for

[[Page 25310]]

essential life functions and that increasing atmospheric levels of 
greenhouse gases are contributing to Arctic warming and loss of sea-ice 
habitat. Although the global population of polar bears is currently 
estimated to be approximately 26,000, we anticipate that the continued 
loss of sea-ice will cause the population to decline. The Service also 
recently issued a Polar Bear Conservation Management Plan that 
highlights the need to take global action to address climate change, 
and describes management measures that can be taken to ensure polar 
bears are in a position to recover once the necessary global actions 
are taken (USFWS 2016).

Potential Impacts of the Activities on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears

    Quintillion's vessels are most likely to encounter Pacific walruses 
in the Chukchi and Bering Seas. The Beaufort Sea east of 153[deg] W is 
considered extralimital for Pacific walruses, so encounters are 
unlikely in that region. Polar bears from either the SBS or CS stock 
could be present at any time throughout the project area, including at 
sea. Quintillion's vessels will most likely encounter polar bears among 
sea-ice near Point Barrow in July or along the coast of the 
southwestern Beaufort Sea in August and September.

Acoustic Impacts

    Pacific walruses and polar bears may be exposed to underwater noise 
from Quintillion's activities. Exposure to high levels of underwater 
sound at close range may cause hearing loss or mask communications. 
Exposure at greater distances can cause behavioral disturbances.
    Pacific walruses are capable of hearing sounds both in air and in 
water. Kastelein et al. (1996) tested the in-air hearing of one captive 
individual from 125 hertz (Hz)-8 kilohertz (kHz) and determined the 
animal could hear all frequency ranges tested, with the greatest 
sensitivity from 250 Hz-2 kHz. Kastelein et al. (2002) also tested the 
underwater hearing of the same individual and determined that his range 
of hearing was 1 kHz-12 kHz with greatest sensitivity at 12 kHz. The 
sample size of one animal warrants caution since other pinnipeds can 
hear up to 40 kHz.
    There is limited information on the hearing abilities of polar 
bears. Nachtigall et al. (2007) tested airborne auditory response to 
stimuli from electrodes placed on the scalp of three captive polar 
bears. Testing was limited to frequencies ranging from 1 to 22.5 kHz; 
responses were detected at all frequencies greater than 1.4 kHz. 
Greatest sensitivity was detected in the range from 11.2-22.5 kHz. 
Absolute thresholds were less than 27-30 dB. Nachtigall et al. (2007) 
did not test the full frequency range of polar bear hearing. However, 
polar bears produce low frequency vocalizations and can detect low 
frequency seal calls in air (Cushing et al. 1988). These results 
indicate that polar bears have acute hearing abilities and can hear a 
wider range of frequencies than humans (which are limited to about 20 
kHz).
    While many of the noise sources generated by the Quintillion cable 
project are likely to be audible to polar bears both in and out of 
water, polar bears are unlikely to be disturbed by underwater noise as 
they generally do not dive far or for long below the surface and they 
normally swim with their heads above water where underwater noises are 
weak or undetectable. Sound levels also attenuate more rapidly near the 
surface due to turbulence. Masking of sound is unlikely as polar bears 
are not known to communicate underwater. Neither Pacific walruses nor 
polar bears are likely to be injured by airborne noise. Sound 
attenuates in air more rapidly than in water; airborne sound likely to 
be produced by the proposed action may cause disturbance, but is 
unlikely to cause temporary or permanent hearing damage.

Acoustic Sources

    Acoustic sources operating during cable laying will include 
propellers, dynamic positioning thrusters, plows, jets, ROVs, echo 
sounders, and positioning beacons. Sound production will depend on the 
vessels in use and their operations. The main Quintillion fleet will 
include up to seven vessels during the 2017 program. The cable-lay ship 
Ile de Batz (or an equivalent sister ship) will operate alone or will 
be accompanied by an ice-class tug. A construction barge pulling a 
vibro plow will install cable in areas too shallow for the Ile de Batz. 
A support vessel will accompany the cable ship as needed. Anchor 
handling will be conducted by a mid-size tug, or in very shallow water, 
a pontoon barge and small river tug.
    The Ile de Batz is propelled by two 4,000-kilowatt (kW) fixed-pitch 
propellers and will maintain 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. Illingworth & Rodkin (I&R 
2016) conducted sound source verification (SSV) measurements of the Ile 
de Brehat (sister ship to the Ile de Batz) while operating near Nome at 
the beginning of Quintillion's 2016 field season. They found that noise 
from dynamic positioning as well as noise from the drive propellers 
both contributed significantly to the sound signature, but thruster 
noise was largely subordinate to propeller noise. I&R (2016) determined 
that maximum sound levels produced by the Ile de Brehat reached 185.2 
dB, and the best fit for modelling attenuation was a spreading loss 
model with a transmission loss of 17.36 Log R. Application of this 
model produced an estimated 160-dB ensonification zone reaching 29 m 
(95 ft) from the vessel. The Ile de Batz is expected to produce similar 
levels of sound while pulling the sea plow during pre-trenching and 
cable-laying operations in the offshore segment of the Oliktok branch.
    Anchor handling and ice management will be conducted by the Vos 
Thalia (the same tug used in 2016) or a similar-sized tug. There is no 
sound signature data on the 59-m (194-ft) Vos Thalia, but data is 
available for the 72-m (236-ft) Katun and the 84-m (276-ft) Tor Viking 
II. Hannay et al. (2004) and LGL/JASCO/Greeneridge (2014) measured 
sound production for the Katun and the Tor Viking II and documented 
sound levels reaching 184 dB and 188 dB, respectively, during anchor 
handling and ice management. Applying these sound levels to I&R's 
transmission loss model yields a 160-dB ensonification zone with a 
radius of 26 m (85 ft) for the Katun and 41 m (135 ft) for the Tor 
Viking II. Propeller cavitation rather than contact with the ice is 
expected to be the primary sound source during ice management 
activities by this class of vessel.
    The M/V Discoverer will provide support for the cable ship if 
needed. This 27-m (89-ft) dual-hulled vessel is considered ``ice-
hardened.'' It is not capable of conducting ice management, but will 
assist with ice detection and monitoring. It is powered by four 551-kW 
controllable pitch propellers. Sound production levels have not been 
documented for this vessel, but it will not be towing, plowing, or 
doing other particularly noisy work. During normal operations, noise 
from small ships typically elevates the natural ambient noise by 10-40 
dB (Malinowski 2002). Other ships in this size class are documented to 
produce sound levels of 127-129 dB (Chakraborty 2015).
    Noise generation from the construction barge will primarily be 
during use of the vibro plow. There are no available estimates of sound 
produced during cable installation by a vibro plow in the Arctic, but 
LouisDreyfus (2014) reported SSV results from various trenching 
equipment, including a vibro plow, in

[[Page 25311]]

offshore waters of France. Nedwell et al. (2003) recorded broadband 
sound levels reached during trenching in the United Kingdom. These 
studies reported source levels of 176 and 178 dB, respectively. If we 
use these sound levels to predict the radii of the ensonification zone 
during use of the vibro plow, we get an estimated distance of 16 m 
(52.5 ft) to the outer edge of the 160-dB zone. This estimate was 
derived using a practical spreading loss model with a transmission loss 
constant of 15 rather than I&R's (2016) 17.36 Log R transmission loss 
model. The I&R (2016) model was estimated from Quintillion's work in 
deeper offshore water. Use of the vibro plow will occur in shallow 
water. Sound carries farther in shallow water due to refraction and 
reflection, and, in this case, a practical spreading loss model is 
likely to be more accurate for predicting attenuation (NOAA 2012).
    A small river tug will be used to maneuver a pontoon barge during 
anchor handling in very shallow water. The specific tug has not yet 
been identified, but smaller tugs generally produce broadband 
underwater noise up to 180 dB; the loudest sounds are usually generated 
by thrusters when towing (Richardson et al. 1995, Blackwell and Greene 
2003). Applying the practical spreading loss model results in a maximum 
160-dB ensonification zone with a radius of 22 m.
    Echo sounders, transceivers, and transponders will be used to 
conduct hydroacoustic surveys of water depth and to guide the position 
of the plow and ROV. Sound levels produced by these sources can range 
from 210 to 226 dB at 1 m, but are generally at frequencies above the 
hearing sensitivities of Pacific walruses; typical frequencies are 24-
900 kHz. Pulses of sound are produced every 1-3 seconds in narrow 
downward-focused beams; there is very little horizontal propagation of 
noise. I&R (2016) attempted to measure echo sounder and transponder 
sound levels associated with the Ile de Brehat, but could not detect 
them, even at a very close range.
    Anchor handling with tugs, vibro plowing from the barge, and cable 
laying from the Ile de Batz may be conducted simultaneously, resulting 
in multiple or overlapping ensonification zones, particularly along the 
Oliktok cable branch. Ice management will not be done during cable 
laying, but will occur when the cable ship is underway. Thruster noise 
from the ice management tug and propeller cavitation noise from the 
cable ship will, therefore, occur concurrently, although propeller 
noise produced by the Ile de Batz during transit will be lower than 
that produced during cable laying. Sound from multiple sources may 
combine synergistically or partly cancel out, depending on the 
hydrodynamics and acoustics involved.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Potential acoustic impacts from exposure to high levels of sound 
may cause temporary or permanent changes in hearing sensitivity. 
Researchers have not studied the underwater hearing abilities of 
Pacific walruses sufficiently to develop species-specific criteria for 
preventing harmful exposure. Sound pressure level thresholds have been 
developed for other members of the pinniped taxonomic group, above 
which exposure is likely to cause behavioral responses and injuries 
(Finneran 2015).
    Historically, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has used 
190 dB as a threshold for predicting auditory injury to pinnipeds, 
which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. The NMFS 190-dB 
injury threshold is an estimate of the sound level likely to cause a 
permanent shift in hearing thresholds (``permanent threshold shift'' or 
PTS). This value was modelled from temporary threshold shifts (TTS) 
observed in marine mammals (NMFS 1998; HESS 1999).
    Thresholds for predicting behavioral impacts equating to Level B 
take under the MMPA have been developed from observations of marine 
mammal responses to airgun operations (e.g., Malme et al. 1983a, 1983b; 
Richardson et al. 1986, 1995) or have been equated with TTS detected in 
lab settings. For pinnipeds, NMFS has traditionally adopted a 160-dB 
threshold for exposure to impulse noise and a 120-dB threshold for 
continuous noise (NMFS 1998; HESS 1999). Southall et al. (2007) 
assessed relevant studies, found considerable variability among 
pinnipeds, and determined that exposures between approximately 90-140 
dB generally do not appear to induce strong behavioral responses in 
pinnipeds in water, but an increasing probability of avoidance and 
other behavioral effects exists in the range between 120-160 dB.
    Southall et al. (2007) reviewed the literature and derived behavior 
and injury thresholds based on peak sound pressure levels of 212 dB 
(peak) and 218 dB (peak), respectively. Because onset of TTS can vary 
in response to duration of exposure, Southall et al. (2007) also 
derived thresholds based on sound exposure levels (SEL). The SEL can be 
thought of as a composite metric that represents both the magnitude of 
a sound and its duration. The study proposed threshold SELs weighted at 
frequencies of greatest sensitivities for pinnipeds of 171 dB (SEL) and 
186 dB (SEL) for behavioral impacts and injury, respectively (Southall 
et al. 2007). Kastak et al. (2005) found exposures resulting in TTS in 
pinniped test subjects ranging from 152 to 174 dB (183-206 dB SEL). 
Reichmuth et al. (2008) demonstrated a persistent TTS, if not a PTS, 
after 60 seconds of 184 dB SEL. Kastelein (2012) found small but 
statistically significant TTSs at approximately 170 dB SEL (136 dB, 60 
min) and 178 dB SEL (148 dB, 15 min). Finneran (2016) summarized these 
studies.
    New guidance has been recently released by NMFS (2016) for 
avoidance of underwater acoustic injury (Level A take) for marine 
mammals based on estimates of PTS summarized by Finneran (2016). The 
thresholds for non-impulse sound are based on cumulative SEL levels 
(SELcum) and include weighting adjustments that account for the 
sensitivity of different species to varying frequencies. These 
recommendations do not identify criteria for avoidance of Level B take, 
but do identify threshold sound levels above which marine mammals may 
experience TTS. For pinnipeds, PTS is predicted to occur at 219 dB 
SELcum, and TTS at 199 dB SELcum.
    Quintillion evaluated the probability of exceeding PTS thresholds 
given the project's predicted sound levels using calculations in ``Safe 
Distance Methodology for Mobile Sources'' user spreadsheet developed by 
NMFS for this purpose (see I&R 2016 for calculations). Model outcomes 
predict there is no area where injury thresholds for pinnipeds will be 
exceeded. We repeated these model calculations using the same 
assumptions to evaluate the likelihood of reaching TTS at 199 dB 
SELcum. The radius of the resulting sound isopleth was 1.9 m (6.2 ft) 
from the source.
    We then used the ``Stationary source: Non-Impulsive, Continuous'' 
model to predict the size of the 199 dB SELcum ensonification zone 
during stationary activities such as anchor handling. We assumed the 
maximum sound pressure level of 188 dB, a weighting adjustment factor 
of 2 for broadband sound below 8.5 kH, and a spreading loss constant of 
15 for shallow water. The model output predicts that pinnipeds within 
2.4 m (7.9 ft) of the sound source could experience TTS within 60 
seconds. Those remaining within 16 m (6.2 ft) of the sound source for 
17 minutes could experience TTS, as could those within 22 m (52.5 ft) 
for 28 minutes, 29 m (95 ft) for 43 minutes, and those remaining

[[Page 25312]]

within 41 m (135 ft) for 72 minutes or longer.
    Based on the NMFS (2016) estimates of TTS onset, most animals that 
are exposed to the maximum estimated sound production level (188 dB) 
will not remain within the radius of the 160-dB ensonification zone (41 
m (135 ft) from the vessel) long enough to experience TTS. Pacific 
walruses swim at an average speed of 7 km/h (4.4 mi/h) and maximum 
speeds up to 35 km/h (22 mi/h) (MarineBio 2013). At those rates of 
travel, a Pacific walrus could depart an ensonification zone within 1 
minute.
    The new thresholds help predict when animals may experience TTS, 
but behavioral reactions in response to noise or vessel activities 
remain a more likely cause of Level B take. Animals exposed to high 
levels of sound are not likely to experience TTS without also 
expressing significant changes in behavior. The best predictor of 
behavioral response for Pacific walruses exposed to underwater sound 
continues to be the distance at which the encounter occurs in relation 
to the sound levels produced.
    Applying a precautionary approach in the absence of empirical 
information, we assume it is possible that Pacific walruses exposed to 
190 dB or greater sound levels from underwater activities could suffer 
injury from PTS. Sound pressure levels greater than 180 dB could cause 
temporary shifts in hearing thresholds. Repeated or continuous exposure 
to sound levels between 160-180 dB may also result in TTS, and 
exposures above 160 dB are more likely to elicit behavioral responses 
than lower level exposures.
    The Service's underwater sound mitigation measures include 
employing ``Protected Species Observers'' (PSOs) to establish and 
monitor 160-dB, 180-dB, and 190-dB isopleth ensonification zones 
centered on any underwater sound source greater than 160 dB. 
Quintillion's work is not expected to generate sound levels greater 
than 190 dB, but PSOs will monitor areas within the 160-dB zone 
(including a 180-dB zone) during all work in areas where Pacific 
walruses could occur. Pacific walruses in this zone will be assumed to 
experience Level B take due to the possibility that prolonged sound 
exposure may lead to TTS and the higher probability of biologically 
significant behavioral responses.

Behavioral Response to Disturbance

    Marine mammals in general have variable reactions to sights, 
sounds, smells, and visual presence of vessels and human activities. An 
individual's reactions will depend on their prior exposure to the 
disturbance source, their need or desire to be in the particular area, 
their physiological status, or other intrinsic factors. The location, 
timing, frequency, intensity, and duration of the encounter are among 
the external factors that also determine the animal's response. 
Relatively minor reactions such as increased vigilance or a short-term 
change in direction of travel are not likely to disrupt biologically 
important behavioral patterns and do not constitute take by harassment 
as defined by the MMPA. These types of responses typify the most likely 
reactions of the majority of Pacific walruses and polar bears that will 
interact with Quintillion's activities.
    Extreme behavioral reactions capable of causing injury are 
characterized as Level A harassment and will not be authorized. 
Examples include separation of mothers from young or stampedes, which 
could result in death of the offspring or trampling of young animals. 
Quintillion has included measures to prevent such disturbances (see 
Mitigation and Monitoring).
    Intermediate reactions disrupting biologically significant 
behaviors, such as interruptions in nursing, feeding, or resting, may 
potentially result in decreased fitness for the affected animal. These 
reactions meet the criteria for Level B harassment under the MMPA and 
are discussed for each species in the following sections.

Behavioral Response of Pacific Walrus

    Between June and mid-November, Pacific walruses may be found in the 
Chukchi Sea near the edge of seasonal pack ice, among broken sea-ice, 
in preferred feeding areas (especially the HSWUA), at coastal haulouts, 
or travelling between these areas. While animals may be present 
anywhere west of 153[deg] W., Quintillion's vessels are most likely to 
encounter Pacific walruses in two areas: (1) Along the cable route as 
it passes between the HSWUA and a seasonal haulout at Point Lay (cable-
laying and support vessels may cross paths with Pacific walruses that 
are traveling between these areas), and (2) near the Point Barrow ice 
field when project vessels are in transit to and from the Beaufort Sea.
    Pacific walruses may respond to the sights, sounds, and smells of 
humans, machinery, and equipment. Typical behavioral responses to 
disturbances include: Altered headings; increased swimming rates; 
increased vigilance; changes in dive, surfacing, respiration, feeding, 
and vocalization patterns; and hormonal stress production (e.g., see 
Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007; Ellison et al. 2011). 
Low-level reactions are common and can be caused by both natural and 
anthropogenic sources. Pacific walruses at haulouts have been 
documented reacting to minor disturbances with head raises and changes 
in body orientation in response to passing ships, aircraft, rock 
slides, and seabird activities (Helfrich and Meehan 2004).
    Significant behavioral responses include displacement from 
preferred foraging areas, increased stress levels or energy 
expenditures, or cessation of feeding. Disturbance that occurs while 
Pacific walruses are resting at a haulout may have the greatest 
potential for harmful impacts. Disturbance events in the Chukchi Sea 
have been known to cause groups to abandon land or ice haulouts and 
occasionally result in trampling injuries or separation of a calf from 
a cow, both of which are potentially fatal (USFWS 2015a). Females with 
dependent calves are considered least tolerant of disturbance and most 
likely to flee a haulout. Calves and young animals at terrestrial 
haulouts are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries during a 
stampede.
    Quintillion's activities are planned to avoid terrestrial haulouts 
but may encounter hauled-out animals on ice. Icebreaking activities in 
the Chukchi Sea were observed to displace some Pacific walrus groups up 
to several kilometers away (Brueggeman et al. 1990). Approximately 25 
percent of groups on pack ice responded by diving into the water; most 
reactions occurred within 0.8-1 km (0.5-0.6 mi) of the ship. However, 
groups of hauled-out Pacific walruses beyond these distances generally 
showed little reaction to icebreaking activities (Brueggeman et al. 
1990, 1991). Pacific walruses are typically less sensitive to 
disturbance when they are in the water than when hauled out on land or 
ice (Fay et al. 1984). Pacific walruses on ice have been observed to 
move away from an approaching ship that is hundreds of meters away, 
whereas walruses in water react at ranges of tens of meters (Fay et 
al., 1984). Quintillion's vessels will maintain slow speeds in the 
presence of Pacific walruses. Ice management activities will not be 
conducted, except in emergencies, until a PSO has verified that no 
Pacific walruses are present.
    Pacific walruses may become habituated to some activities, 
tempering their reactions. For example, Pacific walruses at haulouts 
show increased tolerance of outboard motorboats in years when they are 
not hunted from boats compared with years when hunting occurs (Malme et 
al., 1989).

[[Page 25313]]

Most adult Pacific walruses have had some previous exposure with ships 
at sea and probably have some degree of habituation to vessel 
propulsion sounds. In general, low frequency diesel engines have been 
observed to cause fewer disturbances than high-frequency outboard 
engines (Fay et al. 1984). The presence of Quintillion's vessels alone 
has little consequence for most animals and is unlikely to cause 
significant disturbances in the absence of cable-laying or ice-breaking 
activity.
    Vessels will produce higher noise levels during cable laying and 
ice management than while in transit. These noises may evoke behavioral 
responses in addition to the possible impacts to hearing discussed 
previously. Passive acoustic monitoring conducted during Quintillion's 
2016 work documented Pacific walruses vocalizing in the local area 
before and after, but not during, cable-laying work. There is a 
possibility that the Pacific walruses moved or ceased vocalizing due to 
the project's noise (Owl Ridge 2017). This may be an indication of 
auditory masking (a change in the ability to detect relevant sounds in 
the presence of other sounds) (Wartzok et al. 2003). The biological 
implications of anthropogenic masking among Pacific walruses are 
unknown, but if the Pacific walruses' response to masking is to leave 
the area, then the physiological costs are similar to those of other 
disturbances that trigger the same response.
    The most likely behaviorally significant responses that 
Quintillion's activities may evoke among Pacific walruses include 
temporary cessation of feeding, resting, or communicating. Some animals 
could abandon a preferred travel corridor or foraging area. Some could 
abandon a haulout on ice, although the proposed avoidance and 
minimization measures will reduce this likelihood. Effects of these 
types of mid-level responses include increased energy expenditures and 
stress levels. Energetic costs are incurred from loss of forage and 
energy expended while travelling to another region.
    The overall impact to the affected animals depends on the duration 
and frequency of the disturbance events and the ability of the affected 
animals to reach and use alternate areas. All Quintillion's activities 
within the range of the Pacific walruses in 2017 are expected to be 
short-duration transient activities. No activities will restrict 
availability of or access to other nearby suitable foraging habitat or 
alternate travel routes during this project. Pacific walruses will, 
therefore, be able to return to normal behaviors and avoid prolonged 
disturbances. Short-term increased energy expenditures are expected to 
be within tolerance levels and will not affect survival or reproductive 
capacity of any Pacific walruses.

Behavioral Responses of Polar Bears

    Quintillion's crew may see polar bears among the broken ice of the 
Point Barrow ice field during early summer activities. If the ice 
retreats northward prior to the start of the work season, the crew may 
not encounter polar bears until August or September, when bears become 
more common near shore and along the barrier islands. At that time, 
workers along the Oliktok branch line could see bears resting or 
travelling along the coast. The amount of time the bears spend in these 
coastal habitats depends on a variety of factors including storms, ice 
conditions, and the availability of food. The remains of subsistence-
harvested bowhead whales at Cross and Barter islands provide a readily 
available food source and may influence the numbers of bears in the 
area (Schliebe et al. 2006).
    Sights, sounds, and scents produced by Quintillion's activities may 
elicit a wide range of responses from polar bears. Individual responses 
are shaped by previous experiences and individual tolerance levels. 
Polar bears have been observed to respond to the sights and sounds of 
human activities, including vessels, vehicles, and aircraft (e.g., 
Watts and Ratson 1989; Dyck 2001; Dyck and Baydack 2004; Andersen and 
Aars 2005). Noise and vessel activity may act as a deterrent or cause 
physiological stress. Alternately, novel sights and sounds could 
attract bears in search of a potential food source.
    Much of the available information about the responses of polar 
bears to construction and industrial activity comes from PSO monitoring 
reports. From 2010 through 2014, we received 1,234 reports of 1,911 
polar bears in both on- and off-shore areas of the Chukchi Sea, 
Beaufort Sea, and in coastal Alaska. Most of these sightings were 
likely repeated observations of the same animals. Based on these 
reports and coastal survey data, the Service estimated that up to 125 
individuals of the SBS stock occur between Utqiagvik and the Canada 
border during the fall period. The greatest numbers of polar bears are 
found along the coast and barrier islands from August through October. 
The majority of observations were of bears walking near vessels, 
development sites, or work areas. Offshore oil and gas facilities 
typically documented the highest numbers of polar bear sightings, 
followed by onshore facilities. Reports by vessels at sea were 
relatively uncommon. Most sightings were of single adult and subadult 
bears. Fewer sightings were of sows with cubs. Polar bear sightings 
have generally increased in recent years, likely due in part to greater 
monitoring efforts, and possibly also due to increased use of coastal 
areas by bears. In most cases, the bear showed no response or responded 
by walking or swimming away from the facilities or activities.
    Chronic disturbances, extreme reactions (fleeing or fighting), or 
disturbances affecting key behaviors are more likely to affect fitness 
and can cause injury. These events have the potential to cause Level A 
take. Polar bears attracted to human activities are at significant risk 
of human-bear conflicts, which could result in intentional hazing or 
possibly lethal take in defense of human life. Historically, polar bear 
observations are seasonally common, but close encounters with people 
are uncommon. Human-bear interactions and impacts to denning polar 
bears are of particular concern. Quintillion's activities will not 
overlap with the denning season and are not likely to affect denning 
polar bears.
    Increased use of onshore habitat by polar bears has also led to 
higher incidence of conflict with humans (Dyck 2006; Towns et al. 
2009). In two studies of polar bears killed by humans in northern 
Canada, researchers found that the majority of conflicts resulting in 
polar bears being killed in defense of life occurred during the open-
water season (Stenhouse et al. 1988; Dyck 2006). Thus, as more polar 
bears come on shore during summer, and spend longer periods of time on 
land, there is an increased risk of human-bear conflict; resulting in 
potential for more defense-of-life kills.
    Lethal take of polar bears associated with development or 
industrial activities is very rare. Since 1968, there have been three 
documented cases of lethal take of polar bears associated with oil and 
gas activities. Polar bear interaction plans, training, and monitoring 
help reduce the potential for encounters and the risks to bears and 
humans when encounters occur. Quintillion has included such efforts in 
a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan (Owl Ridge 2016).
    Polar bears are most likely to react to Quintillion's activities 
with short-term behavioral responses, such as changes in direction of 
travel, discontinued hunting efforts, or heightened levels of 
vigilance. The effects of retreating from a disturbance may be minimal 
if the event is short and the animal is

[[Page 25314]]

otherwise unstressed. However, on a warm day, a short run may be enough 
to overheat a well-insulated polar bear. The effect of fleeing a vessel 
on young polar bear cubs would likely be the use of energy that 
otherwise would be needed for survival during a critical time in a 
polar bear's life. Significant behavioral responses could also include 
abandonment of a seal carcass or a preferred hunting area, or fleeing 
from land into water. Polar bears disturbed while resting may exhibit 
more substantial energy expenditures or adverse physiological responses 
than those disturbed while active (Watts et al. 1991).
    Open-water encounters with polar bears are possible. Monitoring 
reports from the oil and gas industry and from Quintillion's 2016 work 
reported several encounters with swimming bears. In those instances, 
the bears were observed to either swim away from or approach the 
vessels. Sometimes a polar bear would swim around a stationary vessel 
before leaving. In at least one instance a polar bear approached, 
touched, and investigated a stationary vessel from the water before 
swimming away.
    Perhaps the most likely scenario for Level B take is disturbance of 
a polar bear during Quintillion's ice management activities. During a 
period of little ice in the late 1980s at an oil exploration drilling 
site in the Beaufort Sea, a large ice floe threatened the drill rig. 
After the floe was moved by an icebreaker, workers noticed a female 
bear with a cub-of-the-year and a lone adult swimming nearby. It was 
assumed these bears had abandoned the ice floe due to the activities of 
the icebreaker. In this type of encounter, disturbance could 
potentially affect the survival of the cub while disturbance of the 
adults was likely negligible.
    Polar bears will most often respond to Quintillion's activities 
with behaviors that are not biologically significant. Bears using the 
ice fields will experience only short-term disturbance or displacement 
during passage of project vessels past Point Barrow. Bears travelling 
or resting in coastal areas and barrier islands will be able to alter 
travel routes or find comparable undisturbed resting areas without 
expending extensive amounts of energy or foregoing critical resources. 
Movement of displaced polar bears will be temporary and localized 
compared to the overall movement patterns of polar bears. Most bears 
will be able to tolerate short-term disturbance without consequence. 
Behavioral responses of polar bears to project activities are not 
likely to affect the health or survival of any individual animal.

Impacts to Food and Habitat

    The behavior of a marine mammal may be indirectly altered if human 
activities affect the availability of food or habitat. Quintillion's 
2017 program will have short-term, localized effects on Pacific walrus 
and polar bear habitat.
    Local areas of Pacific walrus habitat will be affected along the 
Quintillion cable route during O&M work or at cable splice sites where 
concrete mattresses will be installed. Impacts to benthic and 
epibenthic invertebrates from cable removal and reburial or from 
placement of concrete mattresses will include: (1) Crushing with the 
sea plough or ROV; (2) dislodgement onto the surface where they may 
die; and (3) the settlement of suspended sediment away from the trench 
where it may clog gills or feeding structures of sessile invertebrates 
or smother sensitive species (BERR 2008).
    Quintillion's work will leave a lasting impact on the seafloor 
within the cable corridor, but will affect only a small area of the 
seafloor. Recolonization of benthic communities in northern latitudes 
is slow and may take 10 years or more (Conlan and Kvitek 2005; Beuchel 
and Gulliksen 2008). The maximum amount of seafloor disturbance is 125 
km (78 mi). Trench widths of 3 m (10 ft) along this length could 
disturb a total area of 0.38 km\2\ (0.15 mi\2\) (0.003 x 125 km = 0.375 
km\2\). This amount is an insignificant portion of the total seafloor 
available for Pacific walrus foraging. Further, none of the activity 
will occur in the HSWUA. The overall effects of cable laying on habitat 
and food resources will be inconsequential to Pacific walruses.
    Vessel activities could affect food resources for polar bears. 
Quintillion's activities may impact seals by causing underwater noise 
or disturbance. Seals may respond by abandoning habitat areas, such as 
feeding areas, haulouts, and breathing holes. Pupping lairs are a 
particularly important type of habitat for seals but are not likely to 
be affected due to the timing and location of the proposed activities. 
The effects of Quintillion's activities on seals were assessed by NMFS 
in 2016 (81 FR 40274, June 21, 2016). The agency found that no injuries 
or mortalities were likely, and the impacts would be limited to brief 
startling reactions and/or temporary vacating of the area. Therefore, 
the Service does not expect the availability of seals as a food source 
for polar bears to be significantly changed due to Quintillion's 
activities in 2017.
    No long-term impacts to polar bear habitat are expected, including 
to the critical habitat designated under the ESA. The designated 
critical habitat for the polar bear consists of sea-ice, barrier 
islands, and terrestrial denning habitat. The physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the polar bear include: (1) 
Annual and perennial marine sea-ice that serve as a platform for 
hunting, feeding, traveling, resting, and (to a limited extent) 
denning; and (2) terrestrial habitats used by polar bears for denning 
and reproduction, as well as for seasonal use in traveling or resting. 
Barrier island habitat includes the barrier islands off the coast of 
Alaska, their associated spits, and an area extending out 1.6 km (1 mi) 
from the islands where this zone contains habitat that is free from 
human disturbance.
    Pacific walruses and polar bears will likely respond to 
Quintillion's short-term habitat impacts with low- to mid-level 
behavioral responses, such as temporary cessation of feeding or 
movement to another area. Responses to habitat impacts are likely to be 
similar to and indistinguishable from those caused by direct 
disturbances.

Oil and Fuel Spills

    Potential spills could involve fuel, oil, lubricants, solvents, and 
other substances used aboard the cable ships or support vessels. An oil 
spill or unpermitted discharge is an illegal act; IHAs do not authorize 
takes of marine mammals caused by illegal activities. If a spill did 
occur, the most likely impact upon Pacific walruses or polar bears 
would be exposure to spilled oil, which may cause injury, illness, or 
possibly death depending on degree and duration of exposure and the 
characteristics of the spilled substance. A large spill could result in 
a range of impacts from reduced food availability to chronic ingestion 
of contaminated food. Spill response activities, especially use of 
dispersants, may increase the cumulative impact of a spill on Pacific 
walrus habitat by making oil more bioavailable for uptake by filter 
feeders and benthic invertebrates (e.g., Epstein et al. 2000; Hansen et 
al. 2012). However, the overall effect on the environment of response 
activities given a spill are expected to be lower than the level of 
impact of the spill alone (USFWS 2015b). The effects of a spill event 
would depend on the amount, substance, and specific circumstances of 
the spill, but small spills, such as could occur in connection with the 
activities proposed by Quintillion, are unlikely to have negative 
impacts on Pacific walruses or polar bears.

[[Page 25315]]

Estimated Incidental Take

    Although we cannot predict the outcome of each encounter, it is 
possible to consider the most likely reactions, given observed 
responses of marine mammals to various stimuli. In general, the 
response of Pacific walruses and polar bears to vessel activities at 
sea is related to the distance between the vessel or activity and the 
animal. The proposed action will include measures to allow animals to 
detect the vessels at greater distances (e.g., by maintaining slow 
speeds) in order to prevent extreme behavioral reactions. Measures 
include minimizing probability of encounters by avoiding terrestrial 
haulouts and maintaining slow travel speeds when marine mammals are 
detected. Acoustic ensonification zones will be monitored by PSOs 
during cable laying, O&M work, and ice management to avoid marine 
mammals and to reduce noise levels when possible (vessels cannot alter 
speed or course during active cable laying). During pre- and post-
cable-laying activities, vessels will maintain at least a 0.8-km (0.5-
mi) distance from feeding Pacific walruses or polar bears on land or 
ice. These measures are expected to reduce the intensity of disturbance 
events and to minimize the potential for injuries to animals.

Take Calculations for Pacific Walruses

    The Service anticipates that incidental take of Pacific walruses 
may occur during Quintillion's cable-laying project. Noise, vessels, 
and human activities could temporarily interrupt feeding, resting, and 
movement patterns. The elevated underwater noise levels may cause 
short-term, nonlethal, but biologically significant changes in behavior 
that the Service considers to be Level B harassment. Quintillion's O&M 
work includes use of a submersible ROV and placement of concrete 
mattresses on the seafloor. These activities may have similar effects 
and could cause behavioral disturbance leading to take.
    Quintillion's operations will generate noise within frequencies 
audible to Pacific walruses. The expected noise levels will not exceed 
the traditional 190-dB threshold indicative of Level A harassment for 
non-impulse sounds, nor will they exceed frequency-weighted injury 
thresholds recently released by NMFS (2016) for cumulative sound 
exposure. Therefore, there is no 190-dB mitigation zone from the 
proposed activities, and no project activities are expected to result 
in take by Level A harassment.
    Level B take by acoustic harassment was estimated based on the 
number of animals that are likely to be exposed to broadband noise 
levels above 160 dB along the cable route, during O&M work, and during 
ice management. The area of the 160-dB ensonification zone is assumed 
to include 125 km (78 mi) of the cable route during O&M work in the 
Chukchi Sea and 50 km (31 mi) of the transit route during ice 
management, for a total of 175 km (109 mi). It is not possible to know 
how much retrieval and reburial of cable (O&M activity) will be 
necessary, but Quintillion has projected these distances based on 
maximum estimates from work on other cable projects plus a buffer for 
unpredictable issues in an Arctic environment.
    The radius of the 160-dB ensonification area was estimated by 
assuming that all O&M work and ice management will produce the maximum 
noise levels estimated for Quintillion's fleet, regardless of the 
specific vessel in use or activity being conducted. The maximum level 
reported in Quintillion's IHA application (OwlRidge 2016) was 188 dB 
produced by the propulsion systems of an ocean tug, the Tor Viking II, 
during ice management. The maximum source level of 188 dB was then used 
in a spreading loss model with transmission loss of 17.36 Log R, as 
described in Acoustic Sources, resulting in a 160-dB ensonification 
zone with a radius of 41 m (135 ft) from the vessel. The total 
ensonified area was calculated by multiplying the project length (175 
km (109 mi)) by the width (2 x 41 = 82 m (269 ft)) to be about 14 km\2\ 
(5.5 mi\2\) in total area (0.082 x 175 km = 14.34 km\2\).
    The Vos Thalia may replace the Tor Viking II during Quintillion's 
work. During SSV, both the Vos Thalia and the Ile de Brehat produced 
lower maximum sound levels than did the Tor Viking II. The estimation 
of ensonification area may, therefore, represent an overestimate, but 
it allows a degree of flexibility in the vessel used and does not 
result in a substantial difference in estimates of Level B take.
    The number of Pacific walruses in the total ensonified area was 
then estimated using the best available density estimates. Aerts et al. 
(2014) conducted shipboard surveys for marine mammals in the Chukchi 
Sea from 2008 through 2013. Their highest recorded summer densities 
were in the low-ice years of 2009 and 2013 (0.04 per km\2\ (0.1 per 
mi\2\)). During the heavy-ice years of 2008 and 2012, densities were 
0.001 and 0.006 per km\2\ (0.003 and 0.02 per mi\2\), respectively. 
Given the continuing trend for light summer ice conditions, it is 
assumed that 2017 will be similar to 2013. Therefore, the 2013 density 
estimate of 0.04 per km\2\ (0.1 per mi\2\) is used to calculate Level B 
take.
    The number of Pacific walruses potentially exposed to acoustic 
harassment by the Quintillion cable project was then estimated by 
multiplying the density by the total area that would be ensonified by 
noise greater than 160 dB. This calculation results in an estimate of 1 
Pacific walrus (0.04 x 14 [ap] 0.6) thereby demonstrating that take by 
acoustic harassment is not likely to affect a large number of Pacific 
walruses.
    Quintillion's activities are more likely to cause Level B take 
associated with behavioral responses than acoustic harassment. As with 
acoustic harassment, the numbers affected will be determined by the 
distribution of animals and their location in proximity to the project 
work. The seasonal distribution of Pacific walruses in the project area 
is directly associated with the distribution and extent of broken pack 
ice (Fay et al. 1984, Garlich-Miller et al. 2011, Aerts et al. 2014). 
During years with high levels of sea-ice, most Pacific walrus are 
expected to remain over the Chukchi Sea shelf and feed at areas like 
HSWUA. During low ice years, the ice edge moves north over the Arctic 
Basin where waters are too deep to forage. The animals leave the ice 
and haul out on beaches (such as near Point Lay), where they rest 
between offshore foraging trips until the pack ice returns. Relative to 
the Quintillion cable laying, if 2017 is a high ice year, few Pacific 
walruses are expected to be encountered during O&M work, as most of 
them will remain with the pack ice to the north or northwest of the 
cable route. Encounters could occur if isolated ice floes supporting 
Pacific walruses were to blow back southward during storm events. There 
is also a possibility of disturbing hauled out animals among persistent 
ice around Point Barrow when Quintillion is creating a path through 
broken ice in order for the Ile de Batz to access the Oliktok branch 
route. During light ice years, Pacific walruses are less likely to be 
encountered near Point Barrow and more likely to intercept cable-laying 
activities while moving between the pack ice and terrestrial haulouts. 
Independent of the extent of seasonal ice, Quintillion's vessels could 
also encounter animals migrating southward though the Bering Strait in 
November.
    It is impossible to accurately predict the total number of Pacific 
walruses that may be encountered due to the substantial uncertainty in 
the work that will be necessary and the unknown ice conditions, but in 
2016, Quintillion's PSOs observed 1,199 Pacific walruses in

[[Page 25316]]

62 groups. The largest group had approximately 500 animals. For 
comparison, during marine mammal observations made for offshore oil and 
gas activities conducted by Shell Oil Company (Shell) in the Chukchi 
Sea in 2015, PSOs recorded 500 sightings of 1,397 individual Pacific 
walruses (Ireland and Bisson 2016). The average number per observation 
was only 1.5, but on several occasions, groups of more than 100 animals 
were observed with a maximum group size of 243 animals. Quintillion's 
work will move through the range of the Pacific walrus more quickly in 
2017 than in 2016 and the work season will be shorter than that of 
Shell's in 2015. In general, summer densities in the project area are 
unpredictable, and distributions clumpy, but it is reasonable to expect 
that 500 or more Pacific walruses may be encountered.
    Most of the Pacific walruses encountered will show no response or 
only a low-level behavioral response. Quintillion's avoidance and 
minimization measures will reduce the likelihood of more significant 
disruptions of normal behaviors, but despite these measures, some 
animals may show more acute responses, particularly if encountered at 
closer range or disturbed while resting on ice. During 2016, 
Quintillion PSOs reported six encounters involving eight individuals 
within 50 m (31 ft) of the vessels. Eight groups comprising 183 total 
animals were observed hauled out on ice floes; the largest group had 70 
animals. Encounters among ice could cause animals to leave ice-based 
haulouts, resulting in a disruption of important resting, nursing, and 
social behaviors. Given the possibility that any encounter involving 
Pacific walruses might involve large groups, and that work may occur 
near ice, Quintillion requested take of up to 250 Pacific walruses by 
Level B harassment based on the maximum estimated size of haulouts on 
sea-ice.

Potential Impacts on the Pacific Walrus Stock

    Although 250 Pacific walruses (approximately 0.2 percent of the 
population) could potentially be taken by Level B harassment due to the 
possibility of significant behavioral responses, most events are 
unlikely to have consequences for the health, reproduction, or survival 
of affected animals.
    Disturbance from noise is most likely to be caused by propeller 
cavitation and thruster noise during cable laying and ice management. 
Sound production is not expected to reach levels capable of causing 
harm. Animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing impairment 
(i.e., PTS) or non-auditory physiological effects, but could experience 
TTS due to prolonged exposure to underwater sound. Level A harassment 
is not authorized. Pacific walruses exposed to sound produced by the 
project are likely to respond to proposed activities with temporary 
behavioral modification or displacement. With the adoption of the 
mitigation measures required by this proposed IHA, we conclude that the 
only anticipated effects from noise generated by the proposed action 
would be short-term temporary behavioral alterations of small numbers 
of Pacific walruses.
    Vessel-based activities could temporarily interrupt the feeding, 
resting, and movement of Pacific walruses. Ice management activities 
could cause animals to abandon haulouts on ice. Because offshore 
activities are expected to move relatively quickly, impacts associated 
with the project are likely to be temporary and localized. The 
anticipated effects include short-term behavioral reactions and 
displacement of small numbers of Pacific walruses in the vicinity of 
active operations.
    Areas affected by the proposed action will be small compared to the 
regular movement patterns of the population, indicating that animals 
will be capable of retreating from or avoiding the affected areas. 
Animals that encounter the proposed activities may exert more energy 
than they would otherwise due to temporary cessation of feeding, 
increased vigilance, and retreat from the project area, but we expect 
they would tolerate this exertion without measurable effects on health 
or reproduction. Adoption of the measures specified in Mitigation and 
Monitoring are expected to reduce the intensity of disturbance events 
and minimize the potential for injuries to animals. In sum, we do not 
anticipate injuries or mortalities to occur as a result of 
Quintillion's subsea cable-laying operation, and none will be 
authorized. The takes that are anticipated would be from short-term 
Level B harassment in the form of brief startling reactions or 
temporary displacement.
    The estimated level of take by harassment is small relative to the 
most recent stock abundance estimate for the Pacific walrus. A take 
level of 250 represents 0.2 percent of the best available estimate of 
the current population size of 129,000 animals (Speckman et al. 2011) 
(250/129,000 [ap] 0.002). No long-term biologically significant impacts 
to Pacific walruses are expected.

Take Calculations for Polar Bears

    Quintillion's 2017 activities have the potential to cause Level B 
take due to harassment of polar bears. Polar bears are most likely to 
be observed during cable-laying activities along the Oliktok branch 
route. The Oliktok branch passes through a chain of barrier islands 
that parallels the coast. This region is often inhabited by polar bears 
in summer and fall. Quintillions PSOs observed polar bears at these 
locations in 2016, although usually at long distances.
    Polar bears are widely distributed among sea-ice and may be 
encountered during ice management operations near Point Barrow. Ice 
management activities will involve maneuvering broken ice with a tug. 
Quintillion's PSOs will monitor for marine mammals; ice management will 
not occur if polar bears are observed in the area. Observers are not 
always capable of detecting every animal and ice management work could, 
therefore, disturb polar bears among sea-ice.
    There is a low probability of encounters while Quintillion is 
conducting proposed O&M activities in the Chukchi Sea. Quintillion's 
vessels will operate there during the open-water period, and will avoid 
sea-ice for safety reasons. Encounters with polar bears swimming in 
open water are uncommon. In 2016, Quintillion PSOs observed one bear 
swimming at sea.
    Quintillion's 2017 activities could encounter polar bears from 
either the CS or the SBS stock. Polar bears encountered near Oliktok 
Point are most likely to be from the SBS stock. Those observed in the 
Chukchi Sea or near Wainwright, Point Hope, Kotzebue, or Nome are 
probably from the CS stock. Bears near Utqiagvik may be from either 
population.
    The expected number of takes was calculated by assuming a similar 
number of bears would be encountered in 2017 as in 2016, and further 
assuming that any encounter could result in take. In 2016, 
Quintillion's PSOs reported 12 observations of 18 bears between 5 m-4.6 
km (16 ft-2.9 mi) from the vessels. Quintillion has, therefore, 
requested take of 20 polar bears, 10 each from the SBS and CS stock. 
This calculation represents a conservative approach to take estimation 
and it is likely to be an overestimate of the actual level of take. Of 
the 18 polar bears observed in 2016, 2 bears changed their direction of 
travel to avoid the activities; others had no apparent response to 
Quintillion's vessels. Based on observation data from

[[Page 25317]]

the oil and gas industry, 81 percent of encounters result in instances 
of non-taking. Therefore, the probable level of take is much lower than 
that requested.

Potential Impacts on the Stock of Polar Bears

    Take of ten bears from the CS stock represents approximately 0.5 
percent of the estimated population size (10 / approximately 2,000 = 
0.005). Ten bears from the SBS stock is approximately 1 percent (10 / 
900 = 0.011) of that stock. Most bears will show little if any 
response, but some may be harassed by Quintillion's work, particularly 
during encounters at close range.
    The majority of encounters that cause polar bears to react are not 
expected to have long-term consequences for the affected animals. 
Although flight responses, abandonment of feeding areas, or other mid-
level responses have the potential to reduce the long-term survival or 
reproductive capacity of an individual, most of the animals that show 
these types of responses will be able to tolerate them without 
consequences to survival and fitness.
    We expect Quintillion's activities to have no impacts to the SBS or 
CS stocks of polar bears for the following reasons: (1) The majority of 
the polar bears from each stock will not come in contact with 
Quintillion's activities; (2) only small numbers of Level B take will 
occur; (3) take events are unlikely to have significant consequences 
for most polar bears; and (4) the monitoring requirements and 
mitigation measures described in Mitigation and Monitoring will further 
reduce potential impacts.

Potential Impacts on Subsistence Uses

    The proposed activities will occur near the marine subsistence 
harvest areas used by Alaska Natives from the villages of Nome, Wales, 
Diomede, Kotzebue, Kivalina, Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, 
Utqiagvik, and Nuiqsut.
    Between 1989 and 2016, approximately 3,126 Pacific walruses were 
harvested annually in Alaska. The years 2013-2016 were low harvest 
years with an average of 1,433 Pacific walruses per year. Lower harvest 
rates in recent years may be related to changes in sea-ice dynamics 
(Ray et al. 2016). Statewide harvest estimates are adjusted for 
underreporting and for animals that are struck and lost.
    Most of the Pacific walrus harvest (85 percent) was by the villages 
of Gambell and Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island, located 135 km (84 mi) 
south of the geographic region of the Quintillion cable project. 
Relative to the village population size (556), Pacific walruses are 
also an important staple for the community of Wainwright, where a 
reported 27 Pacific walruses were taken annually from 2007 through 
2016. The village of Diomede (population of approximately 115) reported 
harvest of an average of 21 Pacific walruses per year during that 
period. The villages of Point Hope (population approximately 699) and 
Wales (population approximately 145), both reported an average of 5-6 
Pacific walruses taken each year. Nome (population approximately 4,000) 
reported harvest of 9 Pacific walruses per year, and Utqiagvik 
(population approximately 4,000), harvested 15 Pacific walruses per 
year from 2007 through 2016. Estimates of harvest by village have not 
been corrected for struck and lost animals or underreporting.
    The total reported Alaska Native harvest of polar bears from 1990 
through 2013 was 1,576 bears. Harvest levels varied considerably during 
this period, ranging from 16 to 107 bears, but the average was 65 polar 
bears per year. Harvest rates are declining by about 3 percent per 
year, and the average annual harvest from 2004 through 2013 was closer 
to 50 polar bears. Within the project area, the villages of Utqiagvik, 
Nome, Point Hope, Point Lay, Kivalina, Kotzebue, Nuiqsut, Shishmaref, 
Wainwright, and Wales regularly harvested polar bears. Of these, 
Utqiagvik, Point Hope, and Wainwright harvested the greatest numbers, 
averaging 16, 12, and 6 polar bears per year, respectively, during 1990 
through 2014. Diomede, Savoonga, and Gambell harvested an annual 
average of 5, 6, and 7 animals each. No project work will occur near 
St. Lawrence Island and Little Diomede Island, but project vessels may 
pass nearby.
    In only a few locations could the proposed project area 
significantly overlap with subsistence harvest areas. These locations 
include the portion of the route passing between the villages of 
Diomede and Wales, the branching line into Wainwright, and the 
branching line and ice management areas near Point Barrow (i.e., near 
Utqiagvik). Quintillion's vessels are not expected to affect 
subsistence harvest near Diomede because polar bears and Pacific 
walruses hunted there are usually taken from sea-ice and Quintillion's 
vessels will not travel through areas of sea-ice in the Chukchi Sea.
    The cable route passes within 30 km (19 mi) of both Wainwright and 
Utqiagvik, and branching lines go directly to both villages. Ice 
management is possible near Point Barrow in July. Wainwright hunters 
usually take polar bears when sea-ice is present in winter and spring. 
Pacific walruses are harvested from drifting ice floes near Wainwright 
and Utqiagvik during July and August (Bacon et al. 2009). Utqiagvik 
harvests polar bears throughout the year. Quintillion will not be 
operating near Wainwright when seasonal sea-ice is present. Thus, the 
cable-laying project is not expected to affect the Pacific walrus or 
polar bear hunt in Wainwright. Quintillion will coordinate with 
Utqiagvik hunters and employ PSOs to watch for Pacific walruses and 
polar bears in order to avoid conflicts during ice management or O&M 
activities near Point Barrow.
    Pacific walruses and polar bears from the CS stock are usually 
taken from sea-ice in winter and spring. As mentioned, Quintillion will 
not operate among sea-ice in the Chukchi Sea. Therefore, the proposed 
project timetables relative to the seasonal timing of the various 
village harvest periods will minimize the impacts to subsistence 
hunting. However, polar bears from the SBS stock may be harvested at 
any time of year. Quintillion will work closely with the affected 
villages and the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC) to minimize effects the 
project might have on subsistence harvest.

Mitigation and Monitoring

    Quintillion has adopted a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation 
plan (4MP) that describes the avoidance and minimization measures. The 
plan describes measures to avoid interactions with Pacific walruses and 
polar bears wherever possible, especially in habitat areas of 
significance. The PSOs will be employed to watch for marine mammals and 
to initiate adaptive measures in response to the presence of Pacific 
walruses or polar bears. A Plan of Cooperation (POC) has also been 
developed and will be implemented to facilitate coordination with 
subsistence users. Work will be scheduled to minimize activities in 
hunting areas during subsistence harvest periods. Quintillion will 
communicate closely with the EWC and the villages to ensure subsistence 
harvest is not disrupted. These documents are available for public 
review as specified in ADDRESSES.

Avoidance

    For the proposed Quintillion subsea cable-laying operations, the 
primary means of minimizing potential consequences for Pacific 
walruses, polar bears, and subsistence users is routing the cable to 
avoid concentration areas and important habitat. Most of the main trunk 
line is 30-150 km (19-93 mi) offshore, thereby avoiding nearshore

[[Page 25318]]

Pacific walrus concentrations and terrestrial haulouts. No work will be 
done near Point Lay, where large haulouts may seasonally occur, or near 
the HSWUA, where Pacific walrus feeding aggregations may occur. The 
timing of activities allows the project to avoid impacts to polar bear 
dens.
    Where cable end branches will come ashore, landings will be 
conducted at right angles to the coastline and immediately adjacent to 
the respective village (except at Oliktok Point where no village 
exists) to avoid Pacific walrus haulouts and minimize activities near 
barrier islands and coastal areas that provide habitat for polar bears 
that is free from disturbance.
    The proposed action will not occur north of the Bering Strait until 
July 1, which will allow Pacific walruses the opportunity to disperse 
from the confines of the spring lead system and minimize interactions 
with subsistence hunters. Quintillion's O&M and cable-laying work must 
avoid sea-ice for safety reasons. In doing so, Quintillion will avoid 
ice habitat used by Pacific walruses and polar bears. The only region 
where sea-ice may be encountered will be north of Point Barrow. 
Quintillion may use a tug to maneuver broken ice away from the cable-
laying vessel in order to transit through the region if needed after 
July 1. Quintillion has determined that if early-season access is 
possible and ice management can be done safely, it would not be 
practicable for the project to delay work by waiting for the sea ice to 
disperse. Early season access to the Beaufort Sea will help to complete 
the project prior to the end of the season and will reduce potential 
for conflict with the fall subsistence harvest of bowhead whales.
    Vessels will be operated at slow speeds to avoid injuries and 
disturbances. Collisions between vessels and marine mammals are rare in 
waters of Alaska, and when they do occur, they usually involve fast-
moving vessels. Observers will monitor for marine mammals and apply 
speed restrictions, alter course, or reduce sound production whenever 
possible when animals are present. Ships will not be able to alter 
course or speed to avoid marine mammals during cable laying, but this 
work will be conducted at slow speeds (0.6 km/h (0.37 mi/h or 0.32 kn)) 
and constant sound production levels. This activity will provide ample 
warning, allowing Pacific walruses and polar bears to avoid the vessels 
before they are close enough to cause harm. Maximum underwater sound 
levels produced by project activities will not be loud enough to cause 
hearing damage (i.e., PTS). In most cases, animals will also be able to 
retreat from the vessels without experiencing Level B take from either 
sound exposure (i.e., TTS) or biologically significant behavioral 
responses.

Vessel-Based Protected Species Observers (PSOs)

    Quintillion has proposed to employ vessel-based PSOs to watch for 
and identify marine mammals, to record their numbers, locations, 
distances, and reactions to the operations, and to implement 
appropriate adaptive measures. Observers will monitor whenever the 
activities of the Ile de Batz are expected to produce sound above 120 
dB. This activity will include transit to and from work sites, ice 
management, pre-trenching, cable laying, and O&M work (including use of 
the ROV and placement of concrete mattresses). The vigilance of PSOs 
will help minimize encounters with Pacific walruses and polar bears 
when the possibility of encounters cannot be avoided outright. This 
oversight is especially important in habitat areas of significance for 
these species, including the barrier islands and nearshore coastal 
habitats used by polar bears for refuge from disturbance, and among the 
marginal sea-ice, used by both species for hunting and foraging.
    Observers will conduct this monitoring during all daylight periods 
of operation throughout the work season. A sufficient number of trained 
PSOs will be required onboard each vessel to achieve 100 percent 
monitoring coverage of these periods with a maximum of 4 consecutive 
hours on watch and a maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO. 
Nighttime observations will be made opportunistically using night-
vision equipment. Quintillion has determined that monitoring by PSOs is 
not feasible during use of the construction barge, the pontoon barge, 
or the small river tug due to the limited space aboard these vessels. 
Encounters with Pacific walruses are not a concern for these vessels 
because they will not operate in suitable habitat areas. However, polar 
bears may be present. The vessel crews will remain vigilant for polar 
bears and will implement all relevant measures specified in the 4MP if 
a polar bear is observed.
    Observers will monitor all areas around project vessels to the 
outer radius of the 120-dB ensonification zone. Specific distances 
monitored will depend on the activity being conducted. Greater 
distances will be monitored during louder activities, including use of 
the sea plow and use of dynamic positioning thrusters. Monitoring zones 
will range from 1.7 to 5.4 km (1.0-3.4 mi) from the vessels.
    Each vessel will have an experienced field crew leader to supervise 
the PSO team and will consist of individuals with prior experience as 
marine mammal monitoring observers, including experience specific to 
Pacific walruses and polar bears. New or inexperienced PSOs will be 
paired with an experienced PSO so that the quality of marine mammal 
observations and data recording is kept consistent. Resumes for 
candidate PSOs will be made available for the Service to review. All 
observers will have completed a training course designed to familiarize 
individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. The PSOs 
will be provided with Fujinon 7 x 50 or equivalent binoculars. Laser 
range finders (Leica LRF 1200 or equivalent) will be available to 
assist with distance estimation.
    All location, weather, and marine mammal observation data will be 
recorded onto a standard field form or database. Global positioning 
system and weather data will be collected at the beginning and end of a 
monitoring period and at every 30 minutes in between. Position data 
will also be recorded at the change of an observer or the sighting of a 
Pacific walrus or polar bear. Enough position data will be collected to 
map an accurate charting of vessel travel. Observations of Pacific 
walruses and polar bears will also include group size and composition 
(adults/juveniles), behavior, distance from vessel, presence in any 
applicable ensonification zone, and any apparent reactions to the 
project activities. Data forms or database entries will be made 
available to the Service upon request.

Acoustic Monitoring

    Sound source verification was conducted in 2016 for Quintillion's 
vessels and activities. The noise levels are expected to be similar in 
2017. No additional SSV is planned.
    Pacific walruses may be exposed to underwater sound levels capable 
of causing take by Level B harassment. Sound pressure levels greater 
than 180 dB could cause temporary shifts in hearing thresholds. 
Repeated or continuous exposure to sound levels between 160 and 180 dB 
may also result in TTS, although this result is unlikely for most 
Pacific walruses. Exposures above 160 dB are more likely to elicit 
behavioral responses. For this reason, observers will monitor the 120-
dB ensonification zone for the presence of approaching Pacific 
walruses. The 160-dB zone (inclusive of the 180-dB zone) will be 
monitored for animals that may

[[Page 25319]]

be exposed to high levels of sound. The radius of these zones will 
depend on the activity being conducted. Observers will also record the 
distance from the animals upon initial observation, the duration of the 
encounter, and the distance at last observation in order to monitor 
cumulative sound exposures. Observers will note any instances of 
animals lingering close to or traveling with vessels for prolonged 
periods of time.

Adaptive Measures

    When the cable ships are traveling in Alaska waters to and from the 
project area (before and after completion of cable laying and O&M work) 
and during all travel by support vessels, operators will follow these 
measures:
     Avoid potential interactions with any and all Pacific 
walruses and polar bears by reducing speed to less than 9.4 km/h (5.8 
mi/h or 5 kn), altering course, or reducing sound production when 
animals are observed within 0.8 km (0.5 mi). Achieve changes in speed 
or course gradually to avoid abrupt maneuvers whenever possible.
     Do not approach Pacific walruses or polar bears within 0.8 
km (0.5 mi).
     Reduce speed to less than 9.4 km/h (5.8 mi/h or 5 kn) when 
visibility drops (such as during inclement weather, rough seas, or at 
night) to allow marine mammals to avoid project vessels (during cable 
laying, the normal vessel speed is less than 9.4 km/h (5.8 mi/h or 5 
kn)).
     Avoid sea-ice used by Pacific walruses or polar bears. 
Observers will monitor all project activities before commencing ice 
management and continuously during ice management. If Pacific walruses 
or polar bears are detected anywhere along the transit route, ice 
management will not commence. If animals are detected while vessels are 
underway, all project activities will cease or be reduced to the 
minimum level necessary to maintain safety of the vessels and crew. 
Forward progress can resume after the animals have departed of their 
own accord to a distance of at least 1.6 km (1 mi) from the vessels and 
route.
     Do not operate vessels in such a way as to separate 
members of a group of Pacific walruses or polar bears from other 
members of the group.
     If Pacific walruses are observed on land, ensure that 
vessels maintain a 1.6-km (1-mi) separation distance.
     Report any behavioral response indicating more than Level 
B take due to project activities to the Service immediately but not 
later than 48 hours after the incident, including separation of mother 
from young, stampeding haulouts, injured animals, and animals in acute 
distress.

Measures To Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users

    Holders of an IHA must cooperate with the Service and other 
designated Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of 
proposed activities on marine mammals and subsistence users. 
Quintillion has coordinated with the Service, NMFS, and the Army Corps 
of Engineers, along with communities and subsistence harvest 
organizations. Specifically, Quintillion has coordinated with EWC, 
Utqiagvik Whaling Captains Association members and board, the Community 
of Wainwright, Wainwright Whaling Captains, Point Hope Community, 
Tikigaq Whaling Captains, the Northwest Arctic Borough, Kotzebue City 
Management, the Community of Kotzebue, Maniilaq Association, Kawerak 
Incorporated, the Nome Community, and Kuukpik Corporation.
    Communications will continue throughout the project through public 
service announcements on KBRW and KOTZ radio stations, messaging on the 
Alaska Rural Communications Service television network, local 
newspapers, and 1-800 comment lines. At the end of the work season 
Quintillion will conduct community meetings at the affected villages to 
discuss and summarize project completion. In coordination with these 
agencies and organizations, Quintillion has agreed to the following 
actions to minimize effects on subsistence harvest by Alaska Native 
communities:
     Schedule cable-laying operations to avoid conflict with 
subsistence harvest.
     Where faults are found, schedule O&M work around local 
subsistence activity.
     Plan routes in offshore waters away from nearshore 
subsistence harvest areas.
     Develop and implement a POC to coordinate communication.
     Participate in the Automatic Identification System for 
vessel tracking to allow the cable-laying fleet to be located in real 
time.
     Monitor local marine radio channels for communication with 
local vessel traffic.
     Distribute a daily report by email to all interested 
parties. Daily reports will include vessel activity, location, 
subsistence/local information, and any potential hazards.

Reporting Requirements

    Holders of an IHA must keep the Service informed of the impacts of 
authorized activities on marine mammals by: (1) Notifying the Service 
at least 48 hours prior to commencement of activities; (2) reporting 
immediately but no later than 48 hours, any occurrence of injury or 
mortality due to project activities; (3) submitting project reports; 
and (4) notifying the Service upon project completion or at the end of 
the work season.
    Weekly reports will be submitted to the Service each Thursday 
during the weeks that cable-laying activities take place. The reports 
will summarize project activities, monitoring efforts conducted by 
PSOs, numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears detected, the number 
of Pacific walruses exposed to sound levels greater than 160 dB, and 
all behavioral reactions of Pacific walruses and polar bears to project 
activities.
    A final report will be submitted to the Service within 90 days 
after the end of the project or the end of the open-water season, 
whichever comes first. The final report will describe all monitoring 
conducted during Quintillion's activities and provide results. The 
report will include the following:
     Summary of monitoring effort (total hours of monitoring, 
activities monitored, number of PSOs).
     Summary of project activities completed and additional 
work yet to be done.
     Analyses of the factors influencing visibility and 
detectability of Pacific walruses and polar bears (e.g., sea state, 
number of observers, and fog/glare).
     Discussion of location, weather, ice cover, sea state, and 
other factors affecting the presence and distribution of Pacific 
walruses and polar bears.
     Number, location, distance/direction from the vessel, and 
initial behavior of any sighted Pacific walruses and polar bears upon 
detection.
     Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, and sea 
conditions (including sea state and wind force), as well as description 
of the specific activity occurring at the time of the observation.
     Estimated distance from the animal or group at closest 
approach and at the end of the encounter.
     Duration of encounter.
     An estimate of the number of Pacific walruses that have 
been exposed to noise (based on visual observation) at received levels 
greater than or equal to 160 dB with a description of the responses 
(changes in behavior).
     Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with 
uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a 
minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another

[[Page 25320]]

applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the 
sampling method and data available.
     A description of the mitigation measures implemented 
during project activities and their effectiveness for minimizing the 
effects of the proposed action on Pacific walruses and polar bears.
     An analysis of the effects of operations on Pacific 
walruses and polar bears.
     Occurrence, distribution, and composition of sightings, 
including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if 
determinable), group sizes, visibility, location of the vessel, and 
location of the animal (or distance and direction to the animal from 
the vessel) in the form of electronic database or spreadsheet files.
     A discussion of any specific behaviors of interest.

Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

    In the unexpected event that the specified activity causes the take 
of a Pacific walrus or polar bear in a manner not authorized by the 
IHA, such as an injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike), Quintillion 
must cease activities or reduce them to the minimum level necessary to 
maintain safety and report the incident to the Service immediately and 
no later than 48 hours later. Activities will not continue until the 
Service reviews the circumstances and determines whether additional 
measures are necessary to avoid further take and notifies Quintillion 
that activities may resume. The report will include the following 
information:
     Time, date, location (latitude/longitude), and description 
of the incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of all sound sources used in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);
     All Pacific walrus and polar bear observations in the 
preceding 24 hours;
     Description of the animal(s) involved and fate of the 
animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    In the event that Quintillion discovers an injured or dead Pacific 
walrus or polar bear, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or 
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 must report 
the incident to the Service within 48 hours of the discovery. 
Quintillion will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or 
other documentation to the Service.

Mitigation Conclusions

    We have carefully evaluated Quintillion's proposed mitigation 
measures and considered a range of other measures of ensuring that the 
cable project will have the least practicable impact on polar bears, 
Pacific walruses, and their habitat. Our evaluation considered the 
following: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to the animals; (2) the proven or likely efficacy of 
the measures to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the 
practicability of the measures for applicant implementation. The 
expected effects of the prescribed mitigation measures are as follows:
     Avoidance of injury or death of polar bears and Pacific 
walruses.
     Reduction in the numbers of polar bears and Pacific 
walruses exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine 
mammals.
     Reduction in the number of times individuals would be 
exposed to project activities.
     A reduction in the intensity of exposures to activities 
expected to result in the take of Pacific walruses and polar bears.
     Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to important 
Pacific walrus and polar bear habitat, especially den sites, barrier 
islands, haulout areas, sea-ice, and foraging areas.
     An increase in the probability of detecting Pacific 
walruses and polar bears through vessel-based monitoring, allowing for 
more effective implementation of adaptive mitigation measures.
     Reduction in the likelihood of affecting Pacific walruses 
and polar bears in a manner that would alter their availability for 
subsistence uses.
    Based on our evaluation of the proposed mitigation measures, we 
have determined that these measures provide the means of effecting the 
least practicable impact on Pacific walruses, polar bears, and their 
habitat. These measures will also minimize any effects the project will 
have on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses.

Findings

Small Numbers

    For small take analyses, the statute and legislative history do not 
expressly require a specific type of numerical analysis, leaving the 
determination of ``small'' to the agency's discretion. In this case, we 
propose a finding that the Quintillion project may take up to 250 
Pacific walruses and 20 polar bears by Level B harassment, and that 
these values constitute small numbers of animals. Factors considered in 
our small numbers determination include the number of animals in the 
affected area, the size of the affected area relative to available 
habitat, and the expected efficacy of mitigation measures.
    First, the number of Pacific walruses and polar bears inhabiting 
the proposed impact area is small relative to the size of the 
populations. The potential exposures for the 2017 cable-laying period 
are based on estimated density and encounter rates during previous 
work. An allowance for the clumped distribution of Pacific walruses was 
also included, resulting in a total estimate of take of approximately 
250 animals. This amount is about 0.2 percent of the population size of 
129,000 estimated by Speckman et al. (2011). The number of polar bears 
was estimated based on past encounter rates to be 10 each from the CS 
and SBS stocks. This amount is approximately 0.5 percent of the CS 
stock and about 1 percent of the SBS stock.
    Second, the area where the proposed activities will occur is a 
small fraction of the available habitat for Pacific walruses and polar 
bears. Cable-laying activities will have temporary impacts to Pacific 
walrus and polar bear habitat along a 175-km (109-mi) linear corridor 
of marine waters and coastal lands in Alaska. Underwater sound levels 
greater than 160 dB may affect a total area of up to 14 km\2\ (5.4 
mi\2\). Trenching of the seafloor may disturb the benthos along the 
cable route, affecting a total area of approximately 0.38 km\2\ (0.15 
mi\2\). Given the expansive range and distribution of both polar bears 
and Pacific walruses, these areas constitute a small fraction of the 
available habitat. These impacts will be temporary and localized, and 
will not impede the use of an area after the project activities are 
complete.
    Third, monitoring requirements and mitigation measures are expected 
to limit the number of takes. The cable activities will avoid den 
sites, sea-ice, terrestrial haulouts, and important feeding habitat. 
Adaptive mitigation measures will be implemented when areas that are 
used by Pacific walruses and polar bears cannot be avoided. These 
measures will include changes in speed or course when Pacific walruses 
or polar bears could come within 0.8 km (0.5 mi), as well as 
maintaining a 1.6-km

[[Page 25321]]

(1-mi) distance from Pacific walruses observed on land. These measures 
are expected to prevent take by Level A harassment and to minimize take 
by Level B harassment, especially in habitat areas of particular 
importance. Vessel activities will be monitored by PSOs, and unexpected 
impacts will be reported to the Service. No take by injury or death is 
anticipated or authorized. Monitoring and reporting will allow the 
Service to reanalyze and refine future take estimates and mitigation 
measures as activities continue in Pacific walrus and polar bear 
habitat in the future. Should the Service determine, based on 
monitoring and reporting, that the effects are greater than 
anticipated, the authorization may be modified, suspended, or revoked. 
For these reasons, we propose a finding that the Quintillion project 
will involve takes by Level B harassment of only a small number of 
animals.

Negligible Impact

    We propose a finding that any incidental take by harassment 
resulting from the proposed Quintillion cable-laying operation cannot 
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the Pacific walrus or the polar bear through effects on annual 
rates of recruitment or survival and would, therefore, have no more 
than a negligible impact on the species or stocks. In making this 
finding, we considered the best available scientific information, 
including: (1) The biological and behavioral characteristics of the 
species; (2) the most recent information on species distribution and 
abundance within the area of the proposed action; (3) the potential 
sources of disturbance during the proposed action; and (4) the 
potential responses of animals to this disturbance. In addition, we 
reviewed material supplied by the applicant, other operators in Alaska, 
our files and datasets, published reference materials, and species 
experts.
    Pacific walruses and polar bears are likely to respond to proposed 
activities with temporary behavioral modification or displacement. 
These reactions are unlikely to have consequences for the health, 
reproduction, or survival of affected animals. For Pacific walruses, a 
predominant source of disturbance is likely to be production of 
underwater sound by the cable-laying vessels. Sound production is not 
expected to reach levels capable of causing harm, and Level A 
harassment is not authorized. For polar bears, the sights, sounds, 
smells, and visual presence of vessels, workers, and equipment could 
all cause disturbances. Most animals will respond to disturbance by 
moving away from the source, which may cause temporary interruption of 
foraging, resting, or other natural behaviors. Affected animals are 
expected to resume normal behaviors soon after exposure, with no 
lasting consequences. Some animals may exhibit more severe responses 
typical of Level B harassment, such as fleeing, abandoning a haulout, 
or becoming separated from other members of a group. These responses 
could have significant biological impacts for a few affected 
individuals, but most animals will also tolerate this type of 
disturbance without lasting effects. Thus, although 250 Pacific 
walruses (approximately 0.2 percent of the stock) and 20 polar bears 
(0.5 percent of the CS stock and 1 percent of the SBS stock) are 
estimated to be taken (i.e., potentially disturbed) by Level B 
harassment, we do not expect this type of harassment to affect annual 
rates of recruitment or survival or result in adverse effects on the 
species or stock.
    Our proposed finding of negligible impact applies to incidental 
take associated with the proposed activities as mitigated by the 
avoidance and minimization measures. These mitigation measures are 
designed to minimize interactions with and impacts to Pacific walruses 
and polar bears. These measures, and the monitoring and reporting 
procedures, are required for the validity of our finding and are a 
necessary component of the IHA. For these reasons, we propose a finding 
that the 2017 Quintillion project will have a negligible impact on 
Pacific walruses and polar bears.

Impact on Subsistence

    We propose a finding that the anticipated harassment caused by 
Quintillion's activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of Pacific walruses or polar bears for taking for 
subsistence uses. In making this finding, we considered the timing and 
location of the proposed activities and the timing and location of 
subsistence harvest activities in the area of the proposed action. We 
also considered the applicant's consultation with potentially affected 
subsistence communities and proposed measures for avoiding impacts to 
subsistence harvest.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    We have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES) 
in accordance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have 
preliminarily concluded that approval and issuance of an authorization 
for the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by Level B harassment 
of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears in Alaska during 
cable-laying activities conducted by Quintillion in 2017 would not 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and that the 
preparation of an environmental impact statement for these actions is 
not required by section 102(2) of NEPA or its implementing regulations.

Endangered Species Act

    Under the ESA, all Federal agencies are required to ensure the 
actions they authorize are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We reviewed 
the range-wide status of Pacific walruses in response to a 2008 
petition to list this species. On February 10, 2011 (76 FR 7634), 
listing was found to be warranted, but was precluded due to higher 
priority listing actions (i.e., the Pacific walrus is now a candidate 
species). The Service listed the polar bear as a threatened species 
throughout its range under the ESA on May 15, 2008, due to loss of sea-
ice habitat caused by climate change (73 FR 28212). In 2010, the 
Service designated critical habitat for polar bears in the United 
States (75 FR 76086, December 7, 2010). Prior to issuance of this IHA, 
the Service will complete intra-Service consultation under Section 7 of 
the ESA on our proposed issuance of an IHA, which will consider whether 
the effects of the proposed project will adversely affect polar bears 
or their critical habitat. In addition, we will review our previous 
evaluation on whether the effects of the proposed activities will 
jeopardize the continued existence of the Pacific walrus. These 
evaluations and findings will be made available on the Service's Web 
site at https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm.

Government-to-Government Coordination

    It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a 
Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native 
tribes and organizations in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. 
We seek their full and meaningful participation in evaluating and 
addressing conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal 
to remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information 
available to Alaska Natives. Our efforts are guided by the following 
policies and directives: (1) The Native American

[[Page 25322]]

Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016); (2) the Alaska Native 
Relations Policy (currently in draft form); (3) Executive Order 13175 
(January 9, 2000); (4) Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 
3206 (June 5, 1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), 
and 3342 (October 21, 2016); (5) the Alaska Government-to-Government 
Policy (a Department of the Interior (DOI) memorandum issued January 
18, 2001); and (6) the DOI's policies on consultation with Alaska 
Native tribes and organizations,
    Alaska Natives have a long history of self-regulation, based on the 
need to ensure a sustainable take of marine mammals for food and 
handicrafts. Co-management promotes full and equal participation by 
Alaska Natives in decisions affecting the subsistence management of 
marine mammals (to the maximum extent allowed by law) as a tool for 
conserving marine mammal populations in Alaska. To facilitate co-
management activities, the Service maintains cooperative agreements 
with the EWC and the Qayassiq Walrus Commission. We are currently 
seeking a partner for co-management of polar bears. These cooperative 
relationships help support a wide variety of management activities, 
including co-management operations, biological sampling programs, 
harvest monitoring, collection of Native knowledge in management, 
international coordination on management issues, cooperative 
enforcement of the MMPA, and development of local conservation plans. 
To help realize mutual management goals, the Service meets regularly 
with our co-management partners to discuss future expectations and 
outline a shared vision of co-management.
    We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed activities on 
federally recognized Alaska Native tribes and organizations. Through 
the IHA process identified in the MMPA, the applicant has presented a 
communication process, culminating in a POC with the Native 
organizations and communities most likely to be affected by their work. 
Quintillion has engaged these groups in numerous informational 
meetings.
    Through these various interactions and partnerships, we have 
determined that the issuance of this proposed IHA is permissible. We 
invite continued discussion, either about the project and its impacts, 
or about our coordination and information exchange throughout the IHA/
POC process.

Proposed Authorization

    We propose to issue an IHA for the incidental, unintentional take 
by Level B harassment of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar 
bears during cable-laying activities in the marine waters of Alaska and 
impacted coastal communities, as described in this document and in the 
applicant's petition. We neither anticipate nor propose authorization 
for intentional take or take by injury or death. If issued, this IHA 
will be effective immediately after the date of issuance through 
November 15, 2017.
    If issued, this IHA will also incorporate the mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements described in this proposal. The 
applicant will be expected and required to implement and fully comply 
with those requirements. If the nature or level of activity changes or 
exceeds that described in this proposal and in the IHA petition, or the 
nature or level of take exceeds that projected in this proposal, the 
Service will reevaluate its findings. The Service may modify, suspend, 
or revoke the authorization if the findings are not accurate or the 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described herein are 
not being met.

    Dated: May 1, 2017.
Gregory E. Siekaniec
Regional Director, Alaska Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-11381 Filed 5-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P