Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38877 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

the MCP, identified by NOAA–NMFS– 

2017–0075, from the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

NOAA-NMFS-2017-0075, or from the 

Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., 

Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 

808–522–8220, www.wpcouncil.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melanie Brown, Sustainable Fisheries, 

NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, 

808–725–5171. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the 

Secretary of State, with the concurrence 

of the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary), and in consultation with the 

Council, to negotiate and enter into a 

Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement 

(PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign 

fishing within the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to 

American Samoa, Guam, or the 

Northern Mariana Islands. The Governor 

of the Pacific Insular Area to which the 

PIAFA applies must request the PIAFA. 

The Secretary of State may negotiate 

and enter the PIAFA after consultation 

with, and concurrence of, the applicable 

Governor. 

Before entering into a PIAFA, the 

applicable Governor, with concurrence 

of the Council, must develop and 

submit to the Secretary a 3-year MCP 

providing details on uses for any funds 

collected by the Secretary under the 

PIAFA. NMFS is the designee of the 

Secretary for MCP review and approval. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

payments received under a PIAFA to be 

deposited into the United States 

Treasury and then conveyed to the 

Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for 

which funds were collected. 

In the case of violations by foreign 

fishing vessels in the EEZ around any 

Pacific Insular Area, amounts received 

by the Secretary attributable to fines and 

penalties imposed under the MagnusonStevens Act, including sums collected 

from the forfeiture and disposition or 

sale of property seized subject to its 

authority, shall be deposited into the 

Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area 

adjacent to the EEZ in which the 

violation occurred, after direct costs of 

the enforcement action are subtracted. 

The Pacific Insular Area government 

may use funds deposited into the 

Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for 

fisheries enforcement and for 

implementation of an MCP. 

Federal regulations at 50 CFR 665.819 

authorize NMFS to specify catch limits 

for of longline-caught bigeye tuna for 

U.S. territories. NMFS may also 

authorize each territory to allocate a 

portion of that limit to U.S. longline 

fishing vessels that are permitted to fish 

under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for 

Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific 

(FEP). Payments collected under 

specified fishing agreements are 

deposited into the Western Pacific 

Sustainable Fisheries Fund, and any 

funds attributable to a particular 

territory may be used only for 

implementation of that territory’s MCP. 

An MCP must be consistent with the 

Council’s fishery ecosystem plans, must 

identify conservation and management 

objectives (including criteria for 

determining when such objectives have 

been met), and must prioritize planned 

marine conservation projects. 

The Council reviewed and concurred 

with the Guam MCP in June 2017. On 

July 14, 2017, the Governor of Guam 

submitted the Guam MCP to NMFS for 

review and approval. The following 

describes the objectives of the MCP. 

Please refer to the MCP for planned 

projects and activities designed to meet 

each objective, the evaluative criteria, 

and priority rankings. The MCP 

contains six conservation and 

management objectives, listed below. 

1. Fisheries resource assessment, 

research and monitoring; 

2. Effective surveillance and 

enforcement mechanisms; 

3. Promote ecosystems approach to 

fisheries management, climate change 

adaptation and mitigation, and regional 

cooperation; 

4. Public participation, education and 

outreach, and local capacity building; 

5. Domestic fisheries development; 

and 

6. Recognizing the importance of 

island cultures and traditional fishing 

practices and community-based 

management. 

This notice announces that NMFS has 

reviewed the MCP, and has determined 

that it satisfies the requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Accordingly, 

NMFS has approved the MCP for the 3- 

year period from August 4, 2017, 

through August 3, 2020. This MCP 

supersedes the MCP previously 

approved for the period August 4, 2014, 

through August 3, 2017 (79 FR 47095, 

August 12, 2014). 

Dated: August 11, 2017. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17347 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF341 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Conducting 

Subsea Cable Operations and 

Maintenance Activities in the Arctic 

Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA). 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an IHA to 

Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC 

(Quintillion) to take, by harassment, 

small numbers of 13 species of marine 

mammals incidental to conducting 

subsea cable-laying and maintenance 

activities in the Beaufort, Bering, and 

Chukchi seas, during the open-water 

season of 2017. 

DATES: This authorization is valid from 

July 1, 2017, through November 15, 

2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38878 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action with respect to 

environmental consequences on the 

human environment. 

NMFS prepared the Final 

Environmental Assessment for the 

Issuance of an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization for the Take of Marine 

Mammals by Harassment Incidental to 

the Alaska Phase of the Quintillion 

Subsea Project in the U.S. Arctic Ocean 

(2016 EA) and issued a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 

issuance of an IHA to Quintillion in 

2016. After reviewing and considering 

(1) Quintillion’s 2017 IHA application, 

(2) the 2016 EA and FONSI, and (3) the 

2016 Quintillion monitoring report, 

NMFS determined the issuance of an 

IHA to Quintillion for its 2017 activities 

falls within the scope of the analysis in 

the 2016 EA. NMFS determined 

issuance of another IHA to Quintillion 

would not result in significant adverse 

effects, individually or cumulatively, on 

the human environment. As such, 

NMFS determined the issuance of an 

IHA to Quintillion does not require the 

preparation of a Supplemental 

Environmental Assessment. 

NMFS’ 2016 EA is available at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/research. 

Summary of Request 

On November 18, 2016, Quintillion 

submitted an IHA application and 

marine mammal mitigation and 

monitoring plan (4MP) for the taking of 

marine mammal species incidental to 

conducting subsea cable-laying and 

operation and maintenance (O&M) 

activities in the Beaufort, Bering, and 

Chukchi seas. After receiving NMFS’ 

comments on the initial application, 

Quintillion made revisions to its IHA 

application on December 20, 2016, and 

January 23, 2017. NMFS determined 

that the application and the 4MP were 

adequate and complete on February 13, 

2017. 

The request continues work 

conducted in the 2016 open-water 

season, which was covered under a 

previous IHA (81 FR 40274; June 21, 

2016). Noise generated from cablelaying and associated maintenance and 

repair activities could impact marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the 

activities. Take, by Level B harassment, 

of individuals of 13 species of marine 

mammals is authorized from the 

specified Description of Proposed 

Activity. 

Overview 

In 2016, Quintillion installed 

substantial portions of a subsea fiberoptic cable network along the northern 

and western coasts of Alaska to provide 

high-speed internet connectivity to six 

rural Alaska communities. In 2017, 

Quintillion plans to complete the cable 

installation work that includes a 76- 

kilometer (km) (47-mile (mi)) Oliktok 

branch, system testing, branching unit 

(BU) burial, and operations and 

maintenance of any areas that do not 

meet testing requirements. 

Dates and Duration 

The proposed subsea cable 

installation, maintenance, and repair 

activities for the 2017 open water season 

are planned between July 1 and 

November 15. All associated activities, 

including mobilization, cable lay, and 

demobilization of survey and support 

crews, will occur between the above 

dates. Pre-trenching operations at the 

Oliktok branch will begin as soon as the 

cable vessels can access open water, but 

not before the IHA is issued. 

Specified Geographic Region 

The proposed cable-laying activities 

in the 2017 open-water season would be 

conducted between the Horizontal 

Directionally Drilled (HDD) pile and the 

Oliktok BU in coastal Beaufort Sea, as 

shown in Figure 1–2 of the IHA 

application. 

Operations, maintenance, and repair 

activities could occur anywhere along 

the subsea cable lines within the Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. All areas 

along the subsea cable lines were 

considered in the 2016 EA. The 

existence and location of any potential 

faults in the system is unknown at this 

time. If a fault is found, a section of the 

cable would be retrieved, repaired, and 

laid back down. Several BUs, located at 

the junction of the mainline and a 

branching route, were not buried in 

2016. They will be buried in 2017, with 

protective concrete mattresses placed 

over them. 

Detailed Description of Specific 

Activities 

Quintillion intends to complete the 

76-km (47-mi) Oliktok segment in 

summer 2017 using a variety of cablelaying equipment, depending on water 

depth. The branch line will be 

addressed in three sections: 

Section 1: An approximately 6.0-km 

(3.7-mi) very shallow nearshore segment 

(from the HDD exit to approximately 

Kilometer Point (KP) 6.5) where 

trenching will occur using a 

construction barge equipped with a 

vibro plow. The barge will winch itself 

along the route using moored anchors. 

A pontoon barge that will be positioned 

in place with a small river tug will first 

place the moored anchors. The 

moorings will be placed with a derrick 

operating from the deck of the barge. 

The pontoon barge will also be used to 

retrieve the mooring after the cable is 

laid. Dominant noise will emanate from 

the river tug maneuvering the barges. 

The tug will not pull anchors along this 

section. 

Section 2: An approximately 12.5-km 

(7.8-mi) transition section (KP 6.5 to KP 

16) where the work will be conducted 

from the construction barge again using 

a vibro plow. Here the barge will winch 

along anchor lines as within Section 1, 

but the anchors will be placed and 

pulled by a midsize anchor-handling 

tug, which will produce the dominant 

noise along this section. 

Section 3: An approximately 60-km 

(37-mi) offshore section (KP 16 to KP 

76) where the cable will be laid by the 

cable-ship Ile de Batz using a sea plow 

that both cuts a trench and lays the 

cable. 

Prior to cable-laying, seafloor 

sediment along the 60-km route segment 

will be loosened by making multiple 

passes of the route with the sea plow 

(sans the cable), set to varied depths. 

The dominant noise will be from the 

ship’s drive propeller and thrusters 

while pulling the plow. 

In addition to the activities described 

above, Quintillion plans to conduct an 

O&M program in 2017, whereby the 

cable system is tested for faults and 

repaired as needed (using the Ile de 

Batz). Repair operations would involve 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38879 

retrieving, reinstalling, and then 

potentially reburying cable. The amount 

of cable that would need to be retrieved 

is dependent on water depth and could 

involve several kilometers for each fault 

repair. If required, the cable would then 

be reburied using a remove operated 

vehicle (ROV) equipped with a jetting 

tool. BUs will be buried after the 

Oliktok branch cable is laid, or before if 

ice delays the Ile de Batz access to the 

branch. O&M activities may also include 

testing of equipment, including the sea 

plow, prior to pre-trenching to ensure 

performance standards will be met. 

Detailed description of each project 

component is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 

FR 22099; May 12, 2017). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to Quintillion was published in 

the Federal Register on May 12, 2017 

(82 FR 22099). That notice described, in 

detail, Quintillion’s activity, the marine 

mammal species and subsistence 

activities that may be affected by the 

proposed subsea cable-laying project, 

and the anticipated effects on marine 

mammals and subsistence activities. 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS received comment letters 

from the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission) and the North Slope 

Borough (NSB). Specific comments and 

responses are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commission states 

that the method used to estimate the 

numbers of takes during the proposed 

activities, which summed fractions of 

takes for each species across project 

days, does not account for and negates 

the intent of NMFS’s 24-hour reset 

policy. The Commission further states 

that it understands NMFS has 

developed criteria associated with 

rounding and that the Commission 

looks forward to reviewing those criteria 

and resolving this matter in the near 

future. 

Response: While for certain projects 

NMFS has rounded to the whole 

number for daily takes, the 

circumstance for projects like this one 

when the objective of take estimation is 

to provide more accurate assessments 

for potential impacts to marine 

mammals for the entire project, 

rounding in the middle of a calculation 

would introduce large errors into the 

process. In addition, while NMFS uses 

a 24-hour reset for its take calculation to 

ensure that individual animals are not 

counted as a take more than once per 

day, that fact does not make the 

calculation of take across the entire 

activity period inherently incorrect. 

There is no need for daily (24-hour) 

rounding in this case because there is no 

daily limit of takes, so long as total 

authorized takes of marine mammal are 

not exceeded. In short, the calculation 

of predicted take is not an exact science 

and there are arguments for taking 

different mathematical approaches in 

different situations, and for making 

qualitative adjustments in other 

situations. NMFS also looks forward to 

discussing this issue with the 

Commission in the near future. 

Comment 2: The NSB requests that 

NMFS require Quintillion to develop 

and employ a more comprehensive 

monitoring plan than was required in 

2016, which includes monitoring of 

bowhead whales in the far-field. The 

NSB states that during Quintillion’s 

2016 cable-laying operation, although 

whaling activities in Kaktovik and 

Nuiqsut were successful and did not 

appear to have been impacted by any 

industrial activities, Barrow whalers 

had to travel considerable distances to 

the east and northeast to locate and 

harvest whales. NSB states that several 

whalers expressed concerns that 

Quintillion’s operations may have 

impacted the behavior and distribution 

of bowhead whales when they arrived 

near Barrow. 

Response: In reviewing and assessing 

Quintillion’s 2017 marine mammal 

mitigation and monitoring plan for its 

potential impacts to subsistence use of 

marine mammal species, NMFS 

convened an independent peer-review 

panel (Panel) to review Quintillion’s 

monitoring plan. The peer-review panel 

included one member from the NSB. 

The Quintillion’s 2017 operations is 

much less in scope than its cable-laying 

operations in 2016, which may had 

larger impacts to marine mammal 

species. 

The Panel considered whether 

conducting far-field monitoring would 

provide valuable information on marine 

mammal distribution relative to 

Quintillion’s 2017 operations. The Panel 

discussed two types of PAM to achieve 

this monitoring goal: Fixed passive 

acoustic moorings that archive data for 

later analysis, and real-time passive 

acoustic monitoring (PAM). Completion 

of the cable-laying activities will be at 

a fixed location, offshore of Oliktok 

Point. Long-term acoustic moorings in 

the vicinity of the Oliktok branch could 

provide information on noise and 

marine mammal presence before, 

during, and after Quintillion’s 

operations. These data would need to be 

analyzed after the moorings were 

recovered. Hence, there would be a 

considerable lag between when the 

operations occurred and when results 

from PAM mooring data were available, 

and these results would not be useful 

for mitigation purposes during the 

whaling season. The Panel inquired 

about, but is not aware of, any plans by 

other researchers to collect this type of 

data near Oliktok Point in 2017. From 

a logistical perspective, it is unlikely 

that Quintillion would be able to place 

moorings far enough in advance of the 

commencement of their operations or 

recover them long enough after 

completion for these data to be useful. 

Therefore, the Panel does not 

recommend that Quintillion invest in 

long-term PAM near Oliktok Point. 

Alternatively, Quintillion could 

deploy buoys in whaling areas for realtime PAM to serve as an alert system for 

detecting anthropogenic noise. 

However, this type of monitoring is 

expensive: buoys must be deployed and 

recovered, and the buoys operate via 

satellite link (or cell phone link if close 

to shore with coverage) to send 

summaries of noise levels on an hourly 

or daily basis, depending on what the 

user wants. The Panel did not consider 

real-time PAM to be a cost-effective 

option and does not recommend 

Quintillion incorporate it into their 

2017 4MP. 

One panel member recommended that 

Quintillion stage PSOs on vessels 

stationed at a distance from the primary 

noise sources associated with either 

cable-laying or O&M activities to 

conduct far-field monitoring. However, 

a different panel member did not 

support this recommendation due to 

concerns about an increase in the 

acoustic footprint when more vessels 

operate in the general area. Given these 

reservations about the reliability of the 

data collected by Quintillion’s vesselbased PSOs, this panel member did not 

think additional monitoring by vesselbased or aerial PSOs hired by 

Quintillion would be valuable. In 

general, the ability to detect changes in 

bowhead whale distribution due to 

Quintillion’s efforts using data collected 

by a dedicated aerial survey focused on 

Quintillion’s activities will depend 

upon the whales’ density, the amount of 

survey effort achieved, and the 

magnitude of the whales’ change in 

distribution. The lower the whale 

density, survey coverage, or magnitude 

of deflection, the more difficult it would 

be to identify changes in whale 

distribution. 

Based on the peer-review panel’s 

recommendation and NMFS assessment, 

we do not consider requiring far-field 

monitoring during Quintillion’s subsea 

cable-laying and maintenance 

operations would improve mitigation 

and monitoring effectives. Nevertheless, 

Quintillion is required to implement 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38880 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

rigorous measures to communicate with 

subsistence users to prevent any 

unmitigatable adverse impacts it may 

have on subsistence activities during its 

subsea cable-laying and maintenance 

operations in the 2017 open-water 

season (see below). 

Comment 3: The NSB requests that 

NMFS require Quintillion to make the 

data it collected in 2016 and the data it 

will collect in 2017 publicly available. 

Response: Quintillion is required to 

make the marine mammal and 

underwater acoustic data it collected in 

2016 and the data it will collect in 2017 

publicly available. All PSO observation 

data from the 2016 operations were 

included in the 90-day reports. All PSO 

observation data from the 2017 

operations will be provided in the 2017 

90-day reports. Additionally, 

Quintillion states that it has provided 

vessel location data for all vessels 

during the 2016 whale hunt to the North 

Slope Borough upon request. 

Comment 4: The NSB requests that 

NMFS require Quintillion to cease 

operations on August 25, 2017, until the 

fall hunts in Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and 

Barrow are complete. 

Response: The fall hunts typically end 

around November 15. Requiring 

Quintillion to cease operations between 

August 25 and November 15 would only 

allow Quintillion to perform its subsea 

cable-laying and maintenance between 

July 1 and August 24. This measure 

would be impracticable for the company 

to perform its cable-laying and 

maintenance work during the 2017 open 

water season. In addition, the 2017 

Quintillion operations are focused on 

installation of the fiber optic cable from 

Oliktok Point to a location 76 km north 

of the point. Neither past nor current 

Open Water Season Conflict Avoidance 

Agreements (CAAs) have identified this 

as an area where season shutdowns 

have been requested. 

To ensure that Quintillion’s proposed 

cable-laying and maintenance work will 

have no unmitigable impacts on 

subsistence use of marine mammals, 

Quintillion is required to implement 

effective communication with the 

subsistence community during its 

operations. In addition, from August 31 

to October 31, transiting vessels in the 

Chukchi Sea or Beaufort Sea by 

Quintillion vessels will remain at least 

20 miles offshore of the coast of Alaska 

from Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt 

Point on the east side of Smith Bay in 

the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions 

or an emergency that threatens the 

safety of the vessel or crew prevents 

compliance with this requirement. 

Therefore, NMFS believes that 

Quintillion is able to achieve mitigable 

measures for subsistence use of marine 

mammals without ceasing its operations 

between August 25 and the end of fall 

hunting season. 

Comment 5: The NSB requests that 

NMFS require Quintillion to enter into 

the Open Water Season Conflict 

Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC). 

Response: Under sections 101(a)(5)(A) 

and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 

et seq.), an IHA or LOA would be 

granted to U.S. citizens who engage in 

a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if NMFS finds that 

the taking of marine mammals will have 

a negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s) and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

certain subsistence uses, and if the 

permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. In other 

words, no marine mammal take 

authorizations may be issued if NMFS 

has reason to believe that the proposed 

cable-laying and maintenance activities 

would not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of marine 

mammal species or stock(s) for Alaskan 

native subsistence uses. Although 

Federal laws do not require consultation 

with the native coastal communities 

until after Quintillion’s operational plan 

have been finalized, permitted, and 

authorized, pre-permitting consultations 

between the Quintillion and the 

Alaskan coastal native communities are 

considered by NMFS when the agency 

makes a determination whether such 

activities would have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

marine mammal species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses. For the proposed 

subsea cable-laying and maintenance 

operations, Quintillion has conducted 

Plan of Cooperation (POC) meetings for 

its proposed operations in the Arctic 

Ocean in Anchorage and in the 

communities and villages of Utqiagvik, 

Kotzebue, Point Hope, and Wainwright. 

Quintillion has not signed the 2017 

CAA with AEWC. The CAA is only 

applicable to activities related to oil and 

gas exploration in the Arctic. In 

addition, Quintillion states that it met 

with AEWC and the Barrow Whaling 

Captains Association (BWCA) on 

multiple occasions, and while the CAA 

was discussed, neither organization has 

requested participation in the CAA. 

NMFS has scrutinized all of the 

documents submitted by Quintillion 

(e.g., IHA application, Plan of 

Cooperation and marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation plan) and the 

recommendations by the peer-review 

panel and concluded that harassment of 

marine mammals incidental to 

Quintillion’s activities will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of marine mammals for 

taking for subsistence uses. This finding 

was based in large part on NMFS’ 

definition of ‘‘unmitigable adverse 

impact’’, the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures, the scope of 

activities proposed to be conducted, 

including time of year, location and 

presence of marine mammals in the 

project area, and Quintillion’s Plan of 

Cooperation. In addition, based on the 

90-day report from Quintillion’s 2016 

cable-laying activity, there is no 

observed effects to overall marine 

mammal in the project area. Many of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures are 

summarized in Response to Comment 4 

above and are listed below in 

‘‘Mitigation’’ section. Therefore, NMFS 

does not believe that signing a CAA is 

warranted. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

We have reviewed the Quintillion’s 

species information, which summarizes 

available information regarding status 

and trends, distribution and habitat 

preferences, behavior and life history, 

and auditory capabilities of the 

potentially affected species, for accuracy 

and completeness and refer the reader to 

Sections 3 and 4 of the applications, as 

well as to NMFS’s Stock Assessment 

Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

sars/), instead of reprinting all of the 

information here. Additional general 

information about these species (e.g., 

physical and behavioral descriptions) 

may be found on NMFS’s Web site 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

mammals/), in the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory’s (NMML) Aerial 

Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals 

(ASAMM) Web site (https://www.afsc.

noaa.gov/nmml/cetacean/bwasp/). 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the U.S. 

Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi seas and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

For taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016). PBR, defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population, is 

considered in concert with known 

sources of ongoing anthropogenic 

mortality to assess the population-level 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38881 

effects of the anticipated mortality from 

a specific project (as described in 

NMFS’s SARs). While no mortality is 

anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 

annual serious injury and mortality are 

included here as gross indicators of the 

status of the species and other threats. 

Species that could potentially occur in 

the proposed project areas but are not 

expected to have reasonable potential to 

be harassed by the subsea cable-laying 

and maintenance activities are 

described briefly but omitted from 

further analysis. These include 

extralimital species, which are species 

that do not normally occur in a given 

area but for which there are one or more 

occurrence records that are considered 

beyond the normal range of the species. 

For status of species, we provide 

information regarding U.S. regulatory 

status under the MMPA and ESA. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study area. NMFS’s stock abundance 

estimates for most species represent the 

total estimate of individuals within the 

geographic area, if known, that 

comprises that stock. 

Fifteen marine mammal species (with 

18 managed stocks) are considered to 

have the potential to co-occur with the 

proposed survey activities. However, 

polar bear and walrus are managed by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

are not considered further in this 

document. All managed stocks in this 

region are assessed in NMFS’s U.S. 

Alaska SAR (Muto et al., 2016). All 

values presented in Table 1 are the most 

recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2015 SAR (Muto et al., 2016) and draft 

2016 SARs (available online at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm). 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES WITHIN THE QUINTILLION CABLE-LAYING AND MAINTENANCE PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ............. Eschrichtius robustus ... Eastern North Pacific ... N 20,900 624 132 

Family Balaenidae: 

Bowhead whale ...... Balaena mysticetus ...... Western Arctic .............. Y 16,892 161 44 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Fin whale ................ Balaenoptera physalus Northeast Pacific .......... Y NA NA 0.6 

Minke whale ............ B. acutorostrata ............ Alaska ........................... N NA NA 0 

Humpback whale .... Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

Central North Pacific .... Y 10,103 83 24 

Western North Pacific .. Y 1,107 3.0 2.6 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Beluga whale .......... Delphinapterus leucas .. Beaufort Sea ................ N 39,258 649 166 

Eastern Chukchi Sea ... N 3,710 NA 57.4 

Eastern Bering Sea ...... N 19,186 NA 181 

Killer whale ............. Orcinus orca ................. Eastern North Pacific 

Alaska Resident.

N 2,347 24 1 

Family Phocoenidae 

(porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ...... Phocoena phocoena .... Bering Sea .................... N 48,215 NA 0.4 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared 

seals and sea lions): 

Steller sea lion ........ Eumetopias jubatus ...... Western U.S. ................ Y 50,983 306 201 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Ringed seal ............. Phoca hispida ............... Alaska ........................... Y NA NA 1,062 

Spotted seal ............ Phoca largha ................ Alaska ........................... N 460,268 11,730 5,267 

Bearded seal .......... Erigathus barbatus ....... Alaska ........................... Y NA NA 443 

Ribbon seal ............. Histriophoca fasciata .... Alaska ........................... N 184,000 9,785 3.8 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (—) indicates that the species is 

not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct 

human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. 

Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum 

estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case]. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., 

commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or 

range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38882 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with 

best hearing estimated to be from 100 

Hz to 8 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, 

with best hearing from 10 to less than 

100 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing 

is estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1– 

50 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae 

(eared seals): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 

39 kHz, with best hearing between 2–48 

kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Thirteen marine 

mammal species (eight cetacean and 

five pinniped (one otariid and four 

phocid) species) have the reasonable 

potential to co-occur with the proposed 

cable-laying and maintenance activities. 

Please refer to Table 1. Of the cetacean 

species that may be present, five are 

classified as low-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all mysticete species), two are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all delphinid), and one is classified 

as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor 

porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

considers the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the 

‘‘Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

The Quintillion subsea cable-laying 

and maintenance activities could 

adversely affect marine mammal species 

and stocks by exposing them to elevated 

noise levels in the vicinity of the 

activity area. 

Exposure to high intensity sound for 

a sufficient duration may result in 

auditory effects such as a noise-induced 

threshold shift—an increase in the 

auditory threshold after exposure to 

noise (Finneran, 2015). Factors that 

influence the amount of threshold shift 

include the amplitude, duration, 

frequency content, temporal pattern, 

and energy distribution of noise 

exposure. The magnitude of hearing 

threshold shift normally decreases over 

time following cessation of the noise 

exposure. The amount of threshold shift 

just after exposure is the initial 

threshold shift. If the threshold shift 

eventually returns to zero (i.e., the 

threshold returns to the pre-exposure 

value), it is a temporary threshold shift 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of 

hearing)—When animals exhibit 

reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds 

must be louder for an animal to detect 

them) following exposure to an intense 

sound or sound for long duration, it is 

referred to as a noise-induced threshold 

shift (TS). An animal can experience 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) or 

permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS 

can last from minutes or hours to days 

(i.e., there is complete recovery), can 

occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., 

an animal might only have a temporary 

loss of hearing sensitivity between the 

frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 

be of varying amounts (for example, an 

animal’s hearing sensitivity might be 

reduced initially by only 6 decibels (dB) 

or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, 

but some recovery is possible. PTS can 

also occur in a specific frequency range 

and amount as mentioned above for 

TTS. 

The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory TS: Effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output (Southall et al., 2007). 

The amplitude, duration, frequency, 

temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of sound exposure all can 

affect the amount of associated TS and 

the frequency range in which it occurs. 

As amplitude and duration of sound 

exposure increase, so, generally, does 

the amount of TS, along with the 

recovery time. For intermittent sounds, 

less TS could occur than compared to a 

continuous exposure with the same 

energy (some recovery could occur 

between intermittent exposures 

depending on the duty cycle between 

sounds) (Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, 

1997). For example, one short but loud 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38883 

(higher) sound pressure level (SPL) 

sound exposure may induce the same 

impairment as one longer but softer 

sound, which in turn may cause more 

impairment than a series of several 

intermittent softer sounds with the same 

total energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally, 

though TTS is temporary, prolonged 

exposure to sounds strong enough to 

elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to 

sound levels well above the TTS 

threshold, can cause PTS, at least in 

terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985). In 

the case of Quintillion’s subsea cablelaying operation, NMFS does not expect 

that animals would experience levels 

high enough or durations long enough 

to result in TS given that the noise 

levels from the operation are very low. 

For marine mammals, published data 

are limited to the captive bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and 

Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran, 

2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are 

limited to measurements of TTS in 

harbor seals, an elephant seal, and 

California sea lions (Kastak, et al., 1999; 

Finneran, 2015). 

Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a 

harbor porpoise after exposing it to 

airgun noise with a received SPL at 

200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 

micropascal (mPa), which corresponds to 

a sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 

1 mPa2 s after integrating exposure. 

NMFS currently uses the root-meansquare (rms) of received SPL at 180 dB 

and 190 dB re: 1 mPa as the threshold 

above which PTS could occur for 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. 

Because the airgun noise is a broadband 

impulse, one cannot directly determine 

the equivalent of rms SPL from the 

reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, 

applying a conservative conversion 

factor of 16 dB for broadband signals 

from seismic surveys (McCauley, et al., 

2000) to correct for the difference 

between peak-to-peak levels reported in 

Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the 

rms SPL for TTS would be 

approximately 184 dB re: 1 mPa, and the 

received levels associated with PTS 

(Level A harassment) would be higher. 

This is still above NMFS’ current 180 

dB rms re: 1 mPa threshold for injury. 

However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of 

harbor porpoises is lower than other 

cetacean species empirically tested 

(Finneran, 2015). 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that occurs during a 

time where ambient noise is lower and 

there are not as many competing sounds 

present. Alternatively, a larger amount 

and longer duration of TTS sustained 

during a time when communication is 

critical for successful mother/calf 

interactions could have more serious 

impacts. Also, depending on the degree 

and frequency range, the effects of PTS 

on an animal could range in severity, 

although it is considered generally more 

serious because it is a permanent 

condition. Of note, reduced hearing 

sensitivity as a simple function of aging 

has been observed in marine mammals, 

as well as humans and other taxa 

(Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer 

that strategies exist for coping with this 

condition to some degree, though likely 

not without cost. 

Masking. In addition, chronic 

exposure to excessive, though not highintensity, noise could cause masking at 

particular frequencies for marine 

mammals that utilize sound for vital 

biological functions (Clark et al,. 2009). 

Acoustic masking is when other noises 

such as from human sources interfere 

with animal detection of acoustic 

signals such as communication calls, 

echolocation sounds, and 

environmental sounds important to 

marine mammals. Therefore, under 

certain circumstances, marine mammals 

whose acoustical sensors or 

environment are being severely masked 

could also be impaired from maximizing 

their performance fitness in survival 

and reproduction. 

Masking occurs at the frequency band 

which the animals utilize. Therefore, 

since noises generated from anchor 

handling, pre-trenching, and DP 

thrusters are mostly concentrated at low 

frequency ranges, it may have less effect 

on high frequency echolocation sounds 

by odontocetes (toothed whales). 

However, lower frequency man-made 

noises are more likely to affect detection 

of communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as surf and prey noise. It may also 

affect communication signals when they 

occur near the noise band and thus 

reduce the communication space of 

animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and 

cause increased stress levels (e.g., Holt 

et al., 2009). 

Unlike TS, masking, which can occur 

over large temporal and spatial scales, 

can potentially affect the species at 

population, community, or even 

ecosystem levels, as well as individual 

levels. Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of the signals and could have 

long-term chronic effects on marine 

mammal species and populations. 

Recent science suggests that low 

frequency ambient sound levels have 

increased by as much as 20 dB (more 

than 3 times in terms of sound pressure 

level) in the world’s ocean from preindustrial periods, and most of these 

increases are from distant shipping. All 

anthropogenic noise sources, such as 

those from vessel traffic and cablelaying while operating anchor handling, 

contribute to the elevated ambient noise 

levels, thus increasing potential for or 

severity of masking. 

Behavioral Disturbance. Finally, 

exposure of marine mammals to certain 

sounds could lead to behavioral 

disturbance (Richardson et al. 1995), 

such as: changing durations of surfacing 

and dives, number of blows per 

surfacing, or moving direction and/or 

speed; reduced/increased vocal 

activities; changing/cessation of certain 

behavioral activities (such as socializing 

or feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where noise sources are located; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into water from haulouts or 

rookeries). 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic noise depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

noise sources and their paths) and the 

receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography) and is also 

difficult to predict (Southall et al. 2007). 

Currently NMFS uses a received level of 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) to predict the 

onset of behavioral harassment from 

impulse noises (such as impact pile 

driving), and 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

continuous noises (such as operating DP 

thrusters). No impulse noise within the 

hearing range of marine mammals is 

expected from the Quintillion subsea 

cable-laying operation. For the 

Quintillion subsea cable-laying 

operation, only the 120 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) threshold is considered because 

only continuous noise sources would be 

generated. 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could be biologically 

significant if the change affects growth, 

survival, and/or reproduction, which 

depends on the severity, duration, and 

context of the effects. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38884 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat 

Project activities that could 

potentially impact marine mammal 

habitats include physical and acoustical 

impacts to prey resources associated 

with cable-laying, maintenance, and 

repair activities. Regarding the former, 

however, acoustical injury from thruster 

noise is unlikely. Previous noise studies 

(e.g., Davis et al., 1998, Christian et al., 

2004) with cod, crab, and schooling fish 

found little or no injury to adults, 

larvae, or eggs when exposed to 

impulsive noises exceeding 220 dB. 

Continuous noise levels from ship 

thrusters are generally below 180 dB, 

and do not create great enough 

pressures to cause tissue or organ injury. 

Nedwell et al. (2003) measured noise 

associated with cable trenching 

operations offshore of Wales, and found 

that levels (178 dB at source) did not 

exceed those where significant 

avoidance reactions of fish would occur. 

Cable burial operations involve the 

use of plows or jets to cut trenches in 

the seafloor sediment. Cable plows are 

generally used where the substrate is 

cohesive enough to be ‘‘cut’’ and laid 

alongside the trench long enough for the 

cable to be laid at depth. In less 

cohesive substrates, where the sediment 

would immediately settle back into the 

trench before the cable could be laid, 

jetting is used to scour a more lasting 

furrow. The objective of both is to 

excavate a temporary trench of 

sufficient depth to fully bury the cable 

(usually 1.5 to 2 m (4.9 to 6.6 ft)). The 

plow blade is 0.2 m (0.7 ft) wide 

producing a trench of approximately the 

same width. Jetted trenches are 

somewhat wider depending on the 

sediment type. 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat and prey include: (1) Crushing of 

benthic and epibenthic invertebrates 

with the plow blade, plow skid, or ROV 

track; (2) dislodgement of benthic 

invertebrates onto the surface where 

they may die; and (3) and the settlement 

of suspended sediments away from the 

trench where they may clog gills or 

feeding structures of sessile 

invertebrates or smother sensitive 

species (BERR 2008). However, the 

footprint of cable trenching is generally 

restricted to a 2- to 3-m (7- to 10-ft) 

width (BERR, 2008), and the displaced 

wedge or berm is expected to naturally 

backfill into the trench. Jetting results in 

more suspension of sediments, which 

may take days to settle during which 

currents may transport it well away (up 

to several kilometers) from the source. 

Suspended sand particles generally 

settle within about 20 m (66 ft). 

BERR (2008) critically reviewed the 

effect of offshore wind farm 

construction, including laying of power 

and communication cables, on the 

environment. Based on a rating of 1 to 

10, they concluded that sediment 

disturbance from plow operations rated 

the lowest at 1, with jetting rating from 

2 to 4, depending on substrate. As a 

comparison, dredging rated the highest 

relative sediment disturbance. 

However, with the exception of the 

76-km (47-mi) Oliktok branch, all cable 

planned for burial was buried in 2016, 

and any BU burial or O&M activities 

conducted in 2017 will just be redisturbing areas previously disturbed. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized under this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ 

and the negligible impact 

determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to operating sea plow 

and anchor handling associated with 

cable-laying and maintenance and 

repair activities. Based on the nature of 

the activity, Level A harassment is 

neither anticipated nor authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g. vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

Applicant’s proposed activity 

includes the use of continuous noise 

(noise from sea plow and anchor 

handling), therefore the 120 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) is applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 

2016) identifies dual criteria to assess 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

five different marine mammal groups 

(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result 

of exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in the table 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38885 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. 

Table 2 summarizes the current 

NMFS marine mammal take criteria. 

TABLE 2—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE SOUND UNDERWATER. 

Hearing Group 

PTS Onset thresholds Behavioral thresholds 

Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) 

Cetaceans.

Lpk,flat: 219 dB ........................

LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ....................

LE,LF,24h: 199 dB ................... Lrms,flat: 160 dB ......... Lrms,flat: 120 dB 

Mid-Frequency (MF) 

Cetaceans.

Lpk,flat: 230 dB ........................

LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ...................

LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.

High-Frequency (HF) 

Cetaceans.

Lpk,flat: 202 dB ........................

LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ...................

LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).Lpk,flat: 218 dB ........................

LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ..................

LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).Lpk,flat: 232 dB ........................

LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ..................

LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

The predominant noise source during 

previous cable-lay operations at other 

locations has been the cavitation noise 

produced by thrusters during dynamic 

positioning of the vessel (Tetra Tech 

2013). Cavitation is the random 

collapsing of bubbles produced by the 

blades. However, Illingworth & Rodkin 

(I&R 2016) conducted sound source 

verification (SSV) measurements of the 

Ile de Brehat while operating near Nome 

at the beginning of the 2016 field season 

and found that the primary noise source 

emanated from the drive propellers 

while towing the sea plow. Resistant 

seafloor sediments resulted in a need to 

increase power (resulting in increased 

cavitation) as compared to cable-lay 

operations at other locations. 

I&R (2016) determined that the 

distance to the NMFS Level B 

harassment threshold 120 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for continuous noise was 5.35 km 

(3.32 mi) when the Ile de Brehat was 

pulling the sea plow. It is assumed that 

the same measurements apply for the 

sister ship Ile de Batz that will pull the 

sea plow during cable-lay operations in 

the offshore segment of the Oliktok 

branch. 

In addition to sea plow operations 

(which includes pre-trenching), 

cavitation noise potentially exceeding 

the NMFS Level B harassment threshold 

of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for continuous 

noise is expected during anchorhandling operations. 

Results from past measurements of 

cavitation noise associated with anchor 

handling have varied greatly with 

distances to the 120-dB isopleth ranging 

from a few kilometers to over 25 km (16 

mi), depending on the size of both the 

tug and the anchor, and the amount of 

power needed to retrieve the anchor. 

Source levels for large (45 to 83 m (148 

to 272 ft) in length) anchor-handling 

tugs during anchor-pulling operations 

have been measured at between 181 and 

207 dB re 1 mPa (rms) (Laurinolli et al. 

2005, Austin et al. 2013, LGL/JASCO/ 

Greeneridge 2014). However, smaller 

(<35 m [<115 ft]) tugs produce 

underwater noise levels <180 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) when pulling (Richardson et 

al. 1995, Blackwell and Greene 2003). 

Blackwell and Greene (2003) measured 

the underwater noise levels from a tug 

maneuvering a large barge near the Port 

of Anchorage and recorded maximum 

sound pressure levels equating to 163.8 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) at 1-m source when 

the tug was pushing the barge, which 

increased to 178.9 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

when thrusters were additionally 

operated during docking maneuvers. 

Quintillion intends to use the 27-m (88- 

ft) Dana Cruz and the 29-m (95-ft) 

Daniel Foss tugs to handle anchors. In 

the absence of sound source data for 

these smaller tugs it is assumed that 

each would have a source level of 178.9 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) based on Blackwell 

and Greene (2003), which would imply 

a radius to threshold of about 8.45 km 

(5.25 mi) based on a 15 Log (R) 

spreading model. 

During O&M activities (including 

burying BUs) the primary noise source 

will be the vessel (Ile de Batz) thrusters 

when using dynamic positioning to 

remain on station. There will be noise 

associated with the ROV propulsion and 

jetting, but these are expected to be 

subordinate to thruster noises. Various 

acoustical investigations of thruster 

noise in the Atlantic Ocean have 

modeled distances to the 120-dB 

isopleth with results ranging between 

1.4 and 4.5 km (0.8 and 2.7 mi) 

(Samsung 2009, Deepwater Wind 2013, 

Tetra Tech 2013) for water depths 

similar to those where Quintillion will 

be operating in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas. However, Hartin et al. 

(2011) physically measured dynamic 

positioning noise from the 104-m (341- 

ft) Fugro Synergy operating in the 

Chukchi Sea while it was using 

thrusters (2,500 kW) more powerful 

than those used on the Ile de Brehat 

(1,500 kW). Measured dominant 

frequencies were 110 Hz to 140 Hz, and 

the measured (90th percentile) radius to 

the 120-dB isopleth was 2.3 km (1.4 mi). 

Because this radius is a measured value 

from Alaska Arctic waters, it likely is a 

better approximation of expected sound 

levels associated with thruster operation 

during O&M activities. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38886 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

Other acoustical sources include the 

echo sounders, transceivers, sonar, and 

transponders that will be used to 

continually reference the water depth 

and the position of the plow and ROV 

that operate behind the vessel. Based on 

actual field measurements or 

manufacturer-provided values, some of 

this equipment produces noise levels 

exceeding the vessel thrusters. However, 

this equipment is impulsive, producing 

pulses every 1 to 3 seconds (sec), and 

the sound energy is focused downward 

in very narrow conical beams. There is 

very little horizontal propagation of the 

noise levels. Measured distances to the 

160-dB isopleth for echo sounders and 

acoustical beacons ranged between 26 

and 44 m (85 and 144 ft) (Ireland et al., 

2007, Reider et al., 2013). I&R (2016) 

attempted to measure echo sounder and 

transponder sound levels associated 

with the Ile de Brehat, but could not 

detect them, even at a very close range 

to the ship. They assumed that this was 

due to the downward focus and lack of 

horizontal spread of the sound beam. 

As mentioned earlier, Quintillion’s 

2017 activities will include installing 

cable on the remaining approximately 

76 km (47 mi) of the Oliktok branch 

cable. Quintillion will then test the 

system to identify any faults. Until 

testing is complete, it is not possible to 

know how much retrieval and reburial 

of cable will be necessary during O&M 

activity in 2017. To account for this 

uncertainty, the acoustical footprint 

(total ensonified area) for purposes of 

this application was determined by 

conservatively assuming that cavitation 

noise would occur along all remaining 

76 km (47 mi) of carry-over cable-lay 

operations (Oliktok branch), and 100 km 

(62 mi) of potential O&M work in either 

the Bering or Chukchi seas. Table 3 lists 

the area ensonified by underwater 

sound exceeding 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

associated with each activity. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED DISTANCE TO THE LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD (120 DB) FOR EACH OF QUINTILLION’S 2017 

CABLE-LAY ACTIVITIES AND THE LENGTH OF ROUTE OVER WHICH THESE ACTIVITIES WOULD OCCUR

Operation Season Water body 

Distance to 

120-dB 

(km) 

Route length 

(km) 

Ensonified 

area 

(km2) 

Sea plow (pre-trenching & cable-laying by 

Ile de Batz).

Summer .................... Beaufort .................... 5.35 187 2,001 

Anchor handling (in association of cable-laying by barges).Summer .................... Beaufort .................... 8.45 16 270 

ROV (O&M) .................................................. Fall ............................ Bering & Chukchi ...... 2.30 100 460 

It is assumed that the pre-trenching 

and cable-laying work in the Beaufort 

Sea will occur only in the summer (July 

and August) with a collective zone of 

influence (ZOI) of 2,271 km2. It is 

assumed that the remaining O&M 

activities in the Bering and Chukchi 

seas (ZOI of 460 km2) would occur in 

the fall, although some burying of BUs 

and equipment testing might occur in 

the summer if the Oliktok area is not yet 

free of ice when the Ile de Batz arrives. 

For Level A harassment zones, 

calculations were performed using 

NMFS optional spreadsheet (NMFS 

2016) for mobile source: non-impulse 

source with input from various sources 

listed above. The results show that 

distances to the PTS isopleths for the 

five hearing groups from various sources 

ranged from 0 to 4 m. Due to such a 

small impact zones, NMFS considers it 

highly unlikely that Level A takes 

would occur for this project. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Density estimates for bowhead, gray, 

and beluga whales were derived from 

aerial survey data collected in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the 

2011 to 2016 Aerial Surveys of Arctic 

Marine Mammals (ASAMM) program 

(Clarke et al., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 

NMFS Unpubl. Data). The proposed 

cable routes cross ASAMM survey 

blocks 3, 11, and 12 in the Beaufort Sea, 

and blocks 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 in the 

Chukchi Sea. Only data collected in 

these blocks were used to estimate 

densities for bowhead and gray whales. 

Beluga densities were derived from 

ASAMM data collected for depth zones 

between 36 and 50 m (118 and 164 ft) 

within the Chukchi Sea between 

longitudes 157 ° and 169 °W., and the 

depth zones between 21 and 200 m 

(68.9 and 656.2 ft) in the Beaufort Sea 

between longitudes 154 ° and 157 °W. 

These depth zones reflect the depths 

where most of the cable-lay will occur. 

Harbor porpoise densities (Chukchi Sea 

only) are from Hartin et al. (2013), and 

ringed seal densities from Aerts et al. 

(2014; Chukchi Sea) and Moulton and 

Lawson (2002; Beaufort Sea). Spotted 

and bearded seal densities in the 

Chukchi Sea are also from Aerts et al. 

(2014). Spotted seal density in Beaufort 

Sea is based on Green and Negri (2005) 

and Green et al. (2006, 2007) surveys 

during barging activity between West 

Dock and Cape Simpson, and corrected 

using observations by Hauser et al. 

(2008) and Lomac-McNair et al. (2014) 

in areas closer to Oliktok (see below). 

Bearded seal density is estimated as 5 

percent of ringed seals, based on studies 

by Stirling et al. (1982) and Clarke et al. 

(2013, 2014). 

Too few sightings have been made in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort seas for all 

other marine mammal species to 

develop credible density estimates. 

The density estimates for the seven 

species are presented in Table 4 

(Chukchi and Bering seas) and Table 5 

(Beaufort Sea) below. The specific 

parameters used in deriving these 

estimates are provided in the 

discussions that follow. 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES

(#/KM2) IN THE CHUKCHI AND BERING SEAS

Species Summer Fall 

Bowhead whale ........ 0.0035 0.0481 

Gray whale ............... 0.0760 0.0241 

Beluga whale ............ 0.0015 0.0090 

Harbor porpoise ........ 0.0022 0.0021 

Ringed seal ............... 0.0645 0.0380 

Spotted seal .............. 0.0645 0.0380 

Bearded seal ............ 0.0630 0.0440 

TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES

(#/KM2) IN THE BEAUFORT SEA

Species Summer Fall 

Bowhead whale ........ 0.1239 0.1285 

Gray whale ............... 0.0097 0.0034 

Beluga whale ............ 0.0778 0.0316 

Ringed seal ............... 0.3547 0.2510 

Spotted seal .............. 0.1171 0.0837 

Bearded seal ............ 0.0177 0.0125 

Bowhead Whale: The summer density 

estimate for bowhead whales was 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38887 

derived from June, July, and August 

aerial survey data collected in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the 

2011 to 2016 ASAMM program (Clarke 

et al., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, NMFS 

Unpubl. Data). Fall data were collected 

during September and October. Data 

only from the survey blocks that will be 

crossed by the proposed cable route 

were used in the calculations, and 

included blocks 3, 11, and 12 in the 

Beaufort Sea and 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 

in the Chukchi Sea. ASAMM surveys 

did not extend more than about 25 km 

(15.5 mi) south of Point Hope, and there 

are no other systematic survey data for 

bowhead whales south of the point. 

During these three years, a total of 478 

bowhead whales were recorded in the 

three Beaufort Sea blocks during 23,955 

km (14,885 mi) of summer survey effort 

(0.0200/km), and 684 whales during 

33,056 km (20,054 mi) of fall effort 

(0.0207/km). In the five Chukchi Sea 

survey blocks, 23 bowheads were 

recorded during 41,373 km (25,708 mi) 

of summer effort (0.0006/km), and 302 

during 39,015 km (24,243 mi) of fall 

survey (0.0077/km). Applying an 

effective strip half-width (ESW) of 1.15 

(Ferguson and Clarke 2013), and a 0.07 

correction factor for whales missed 

during the surveys, results in corrected 

densities of 0.1239 (Beaufort summer), 

0.1285 (Beaufort fall), 0.0035 (Chukchi 

summer), and 0.0481 (Chukchi fall) 

whales per km2 (Table 4 and Table 5). 

Gray Whale: Gray whale density 

estimates were derived from the same 

ASAMM transect data used to 

determine bowhead whale densities. 

During the four years of aerial survey, 

39 gray whales were recorded in the 

three Beaufort Sea blocks during 23,955 

km (14,885 mi) of summer survey effort 

(0.0016/km), and 19 gray whales during 

33,056 km (20,054 mi) of fall effort 

(0.0006/km). In the five Chukchi Sea 

survey blocks, 529 gray whales were 

recorded during 41,373 km (25,708 mi) 

of summer effort (0.0128/km), and 158 

during 39,015 km (24,243 mi) of fall 

survey (0.0040/km). Applying an 

effective strip half-width (ESW) of 1.201 

(Ferguson and Clarke 2013), and a 

correction factor of 0.07, results in 

corrected densities of 0.0097 (Beaufort 

summer), 0.0034 (Beaufort fall), 0.0760 

(Chukchi summer), and 0.0241 (Chukchi 

fall) whales per km2 (Table 4 and Table 

5). 

Beluga Whale: Beluga whale density 

estimates were derived from the 

ASAMM transect data collected from 

2011 to 2016 (Clarke et al., 2012, 2013, 

2014, 2015, 2016, NMFS Unpubl. Data). 

During summer aerial surveys (June– 

August), there were 376 beluga whale 

observed along 6,786 km (4,217 mi) of 

transect in waters between 21 to 200 m 

(13 to 124 ft) deep and between 

longitudes 154 °W and 157 °W. This 

equates to 0.0554 whales/km of 

trackline and a corrected density of 

0.0778 whales per km2, assuming an 

ESW of 0.614 km and a 0.58 correction 

factor. Fall density estimates 

(September–October) for this region 

were based on 239 beluga whales seen 

along 10,632 km (6,606 mi) of transect. 

This equates to 0.0225 whales/km of 

trackline and a corrected density of 

0.0316 whales per km2, assuming an 

ESW of 0.614 km and a 0.58 correction 

factor. 

During summer aerial surveys (June– 

August), there were 40 beluga whale 

observed along 38,347 km (23,828 mi) of 

transect in waters less than 36 to 50 m 

(22 to 31 ft) deep and between 

longitudes 157 °W and 169 °W. This 

equates to 0.0010 whales/km of 

trackline and a corrected density of 

0.0015 whales per km2, assuming an 

ESW of 0.614 km and a 0.58 correction 

factor. Calculated fall beluga densities 

for the same region was based on 237 

beluga whales seen during 36,816 km 

(22,876 mi) of transect. This equates to 

0.0064 whales/km and a corrected 

density of 0.0090 whales per km2, again 

assuming an ESW of 0.614 km and a 

0.58 correction factor. 

Harbor Porpoise: Although harbor 

porpoise are known to occur in low 

numbers in the Chukchi Sea (Aerts et 

al., 2014), no harbor porpoise were 

positively identified during Chukchi 

Offshore Monitoring in Drilling Area 

(COMIDA) and ASAMM aerial surveys 

conducted in the Chukchi Sea from 

2006 to 2013 (Clarke et al. 2011, 2012, 

2013, 2014). A few small unidentified 

cetaceans that were observed may have 

been harbor porpoise. Hartin et al. 

(2013) conducted vessel-based surveys 

in the Chukchi Sea while monitoring oil 

and gas activities between 2006 and 

2010 and recorded several harbor 

porpoises throughout the summer and 

early fall. Vessel-based surveys may be 

more conducive to sighting these small, 

cryptic porpoise than the aerial-based 

COMIDA/ASAMM surveys. The Hartin 

et al. (2013) three-year average summer 

densities (0.0022/km2) and fall densities 

(0.0021/km2) were very similar, and are 

included in Table 4. 

Ringed and Spotted Seals: Aerts et al. 

(2014) conducted a marine mammal 

monitoring program in the northeastern 

Chukchi Sea in association with oil and 

gas exploration activities between 2008 

and 2013. For sightings of either ringed 

or spotted seals, the highest summer 

density was 0.127 seals/km2 (2008) and 

the highest fall density was 0.076 seals/ 

km2 (2013). Where seals could be 

identified to species, they found the 

ratio of ringed to spotted seals to be 2:1. 

However, monitoring the cable-lay 

activity in 2016 showed a nearly 1:1 

ratio for ringed and spotted seals in all 

Bering and Chukchi seas, with the 

exception of Kotzebue where high 

numbers of spotted seals were observed. 

Kotzebue is a fall concentration for 

feeding spotted seals. Because the cablelay work at Kotzebue is complete, and 

any 2017 work there is either unlikely 

or would be brief, Kotzebue nearshore 

densities are not taken into special 

account in the overall estimated spotted 

seal density for the Bering and Chukchi 

seas. The 1:1 ratio observed in 2016 is 

taken into consideration by splitting the 

above Aerts et al. (2014) densities 

equally for each species: 0.064 seals/ 

km2 for summer and 0.038 seals/km2 for 

fall. These are the densities used in the 

exposure calculations (Table 4) to 

represent ringed and spotted seal 

densities for both the northern Bering 

and Chukchi seas. 

Moulton and Lawson (2002) 

conducted summer shipboard-based 

surveys for pinnipeds along the 

nearshore Alaska Beaufort Sea coast, 

while the Kingsley (1986) conducted 

surveys here along the ice margin 

representing fall conditions. The ringed 

seal results from these surveys were 

used in the exposure estimates (Table 

4). Neither survey provided a good 

estimate of spotted seal densities. Green 

and Negri (2005) and Green et al. (2006, 

2007) recorded pinnipeds during 

barging activity between West Dock and 

Cape Simpson, and found high numbers 

of ringed seal in Harrison Bay, and 

peaks in spotted seal numbers off the 

Colville River delta where a haulout site 

is located. Approximately 5 percent of 

all phocid sightings recorded by Green 

and Negri (2005) and Green et al. (2006, 

2007) were spotted seals, which provide 

an estimate of the proportion of ringed 

seals versus spotted seals in the Colville 

River delta and Harrison Bay, both areas 

relatively close to the proposed Oliktok 

branch line. However, monitoring 

conducted nearer to Oliktok Point by 

Hauser et al. (2008) and Lomac-McNair 

et al. (2014) indicated that spotted seals 

are more commonly observed in waters 

nearest shore than ringed seals. While 

only a small portion of the Oliktok 

branch that remains to be installed 

occurs in waters within 5 km (3 mi) of 

shore, much of the work within 5 km (3 

mi) will take more days of activity to 

complete than offshore work and, 

hence, could result in a 

disproportionately higher number of 

spotted seal sightings than existing 

survey data might predict. Therefore, as 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38888 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

a conservative measure, the ringed seal 

density data from Moulton and Lawson 

(2002) and Kingsley (1986) is applied to 

both species, especially given the 2016 

results indicate that outside Kotzebue, 

observers were reporting a nearly 3:1 

ratio of both species. 

Bearded Seal: The most representative 

estimates of summer and fall density of 

bearded seals in the northern Bering and 

Chukchi seas come from Aerts et al. 

(2014) monitoring program that ran from 

2008 to 2013 in the northeastern 

Chukchi Sea. During this period the 

highest summer estimate was 0.063 

seals/km2 (2013) and the highest fall 

estimate was 0.044 seals/km2 (2010). 

These are the values that were used in 

developing exposure estimates for this 

species for the northern Bering and 

Chukchi seas cable-lay areas (Table 4). 

There are no accurate density 

estimates for bearded seals in the 

Beaufort Sea based on survey data. 

However, Stirling et al. (1982) noted 

that the proportion of eastern Beaufort 

Sea bearded seals is 5 percent that of 

ringed seals. Further, Clarke et al. (2013, 

2014) recorded 82 bearded seals in both 

the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during 

the 2012 and 2013 ASAMM surveys, 

which represented 5.1 percent of all 

their ringed seal and small unidentified 

pinniped sightings (1,586). Bengtson et 

al. (2005) noted a similar ratio (6 

percent) during spring surveys of ice 

seals in the Chukchi Sea. Therefore, the 

density values in Table 3 were 

determined by multiplying ringed seal 

density from Moulton and Lawson 

(2002) and Kingsley (1986) by 5 percent. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

As stated earlier in the document, 

ensonified distances to Level A 

harassment from various sources ranged 

from 0 to 4 m for all marine mammal 

hearing groups. It’s highly unlikely that 

an animal will reach to this close 

distance to the vessel. Therefore, we 

consider there is no concern for level A 

take. 

The estimated potential harassment 

take of local marine mammals by the 

project was determined by multiplying 

the seasonal animal densities in Table 4 

and Table 5 with the maximum seasonal 

area that would be ensonified by the 

estimated operational underwater noise 

greater than 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

during each activity by each season 

(shown in Table 3). The resulting 

exposure calculations are provided in 

Table 6. 

For marine mammals for which 

reliable density estimates do not exist in 

the project area (i.e., humpback whale, 

fin whale, minke whale, killer whale, 

harbor porpoise, Steller sea lion, and 

ribbon seal) due to low abundance, 

potential exposures are based on 

recorded observations of these species 

in the recent past as discussed earlier in 

this document (Hashagen et al., 2009; 

Green and Negri, 2005; Green et al., 

2007) and from Quintillion’s Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Report during its 

2016 subsea cable-laying operations 

(Quintillion 2017). The take numbers for 

harbor porpoise are adjusted upwards to 

account for group size. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED AND REQUESTED TAKES OF MARINE MAMMAL BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Species 

Beaufort 

summer 

exposures 

Chukchi & 

Bering fall 

exposure 

Total 

requested 

take 

Abundance Percentage of 

stock 

Bowhead whale .................................................................... 292 22 314 16,892 1.87 

Gray whale ........................................................................... 23 11 34 20,990 0.16 

Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea) ............................................... 184 4 188 39,258 0.48 

Beluga whale (E. Chukchi Sea) ........................................... 184 4 188 3,710 5.07 

Beluga whale (E. Bering Sea) ............................................. 184 4 188 19,186 0.98 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 0 15 15 48,215 0.03 

Ringed seal .......................................................................... 838 17 855 170,000 0.50 

Spotted seal ......................................................................... 279 17 296 460,268 0.06 

Bearded seal ........................................................................ 42 20 62 299,174 0.02 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 0 60 60 10,103 0.59 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 0 15 15 5,700 0.26 

Minke whale ......................................................................... 0 15 15 2,020 0.74 

Killer whale ........................................................................... 0 5 5 2,347 1.07 

Ribbon seal .......................................................................... 0 5 5 18,400 0.21 

Steller sea lion ..................................................................... 0 8 8 50,983 0.02 

Effects of Specified Activities on 

Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals 

The availability of the affected marine 

mammal stocks or species for 

subsistence uses may be impacted by 

this activity. The subsistence uses that 

may be affected and the potential 

impacts of the activity on those uses are 

described below. Measures included in 

this IHA to reduce the impacts of the 

activity on subsistence uses are 

described in the Mitigation section. 

Last, the information from this section 

and the Mitigation section is analyzed to 

determine whether the necessary 

findings may be made in the 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination section. 

Underwater noise generated from the 

Quintillion’s proposed cable-laying and 

O&M activities could affect subsistence 

uses of marine mammals by causing the 

animals to avoid the hunting areas and 

making the animals more difficult to 

approach by the hunters. 

The cable-lay activities that might 

occur in 2017 as a result of repair work 

could occur within the marine 

subsistence areas used by the villages of 

Nome, Wales, Kotzebue, Little Diomede, 

Kivalina, Point Hope, Wainwright, 

Barrow, and Nuiqsut. Subsistence use 

various considerably by season and 

location. Seven of the villages hunt 

bowhead whales (Suydam and George 

2004). The small villages of Wales, Little 

Diomedes, and Kivalina take a bowhead 

whale about once every five years. Point 

Hope and Nuiqsut each harvest three to 

four whales annually, and Wainwright 

five to six. Harvest from Barrow is by far 

the highest with about 25 whales taken 

each year and generally split between 

spring and fall hunts. Point Hope and 

Wainwright harvest occurs largely 

during the spring hunt, and Nuiqsut’s 

during the fall. Nuiqsut whalers base 

from Cross Island, 70 km (44 mi) east of 

Oliktok. 

Beluga are also annually harvested by 

the villages noted above. Beluga harvest 

is most important to Point Hope. For 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38889 

example, the village harvested 84 beluga 

whales during the spring of 2012, and 

averaged 31 whales a year from 1987 to 

2006 (Frost and Suydam, 2010). Beluga 

are also important to Wainwright 

villages. They harvested 34 beluga 

whales in 2012, and averaged 11 

annually from 1987 to 2006 (Frost and 

Suydam, 2010). All the other villages 

(Nome, Kotzebue, Wales, Kivalina, Little 

Diomede, and Barrow) averaged less 

than 10 whales per year (Frost and 

Suydam, 2010). 

All villages use seals to one degree or 

another as well. Ringed seal harvest 

mostly occurs in the winter and spring 

when they are hauled out on ice near 

leads or at breathing holes. Bearded 

seals are taken from boats during the 

early summer as they migrate northward 

in the Chukchi Sea and eastward in the 

Beaufort Sea. 

Bearded seals are a staple for villages 

like Kotzebue and Kivalina that have 

limited access to bowhead and beluga 

whales (Georgette and Loon, 1993). 

Thetis Island, located just off the 

Colville River delta, is an important 

base from which villagers from Nuiqsut 

hunt bearded seals each summer after 

ice breakup. 

Spotted seals are an important 

summer resource for Wainwright and 

Nuiqsut, but other villages will avoid 

them because the meat is less appealing 

than other available marine mammals. 

The proposed cable-lay activity will 

occur in the summer after the spring 

bowhead and beluga whale hunts have 

ended, and will avoid the ice period 

when ringed seals are harvested. The 

Oliktok branch will pass within 4 km (2 

mi) of Thetis Island, but the actual 

laying of cable along that branch near 

the island should occur after the 

bearded seal hunt is over. 

Quintillion states that it will work 

closely with the AEWC, the Alaska 

Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC), the 

Ice Seal Committee (ISC), and the NSB 

to minimize any effects cable-lay 

activities might have on subsistence 

harvest (see below). 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses. 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned). and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

The primary purpose of these 

mitigation measures is to detect marine 

mammals and avoid vessel interactions 

during the pre- and post-cable-laying 

and O&M activities. Due to the nature of 

the activities, the vessel will not be able 

to engage in direction alteration during 

cable-laying operations. However, since 

the cable-laying vessel will be moving at 

a slow speed of 600 meter/hour (0.37 

mile per hour or 0.32 knot) during 

cable-laying operations, it is highly 

unlikely that the cable vessel would 

have physical interaction with marine 

mammals. For Quintillion’s proposed 

subsea cable-laying project, NMFS is 

requiring Quintillion to implement the 

following mitigation measures to 

minimize the potential impacts to 

marine mammals in the project vicinity 

as a result of its planned activities. 

(a) Vessel Movement Mitigation 

during Pre- and Post-cable-laying 

Activities: 

When the cable-lay fleet is traveling 

in Alaskan waters to and from the 

project area (before and after completion 

of cable-laying or O&M operations), the 

fleet vessels would: 

• Not approach concentrations or 

groups of whales (an aggregation of 6 or 

more whales) within 1.6 km (1 mi) by 

all vessels under the direction of 

Quintillion; 

• Take reasonable precautions to 

avoid potential interaction with any 

bowhead whales observed within 1.6 

km (1 mi) of a vessel; and 

• Reduce speed to less than 5 knots 

when visibility drops, to avoid the 

likelihood of collision with whales. The 

normal vessel travel speeds when laying 

cable is well less than 5 knots. 

Mitigation for Subsistence Uses of 

Marine Mammals or Plan of 

Cooperation 

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) 

further require IHA applicants 

conducting activities that take place in 

Arctic waters to provide a Plan of 

Cooperation or information that 

identifies what measures have been 

taken and/or will be taken to minimize 

adverse effects on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence 

purposes. A plan must include the 

following: 

• A statement that the applicant has 

notified and provided the affected 

subsistence community with a draft 

plan of cooperation; 

• A schedule for meeting with the 

affected subsistence communities to 

discuss proposed activities and to 

resolve potential conflicts regarding any 

aspects of either the operation or the 

plan of cooperation; 

• A description of what measures the 

applicant has taken and/or will take to 

ensure that proposed activities will not 

interfere with subsistence whaling or 

sealing; and 

• What plans the applicant has to 

continue to meet with the affected 

communities, both prior to and while 

conducting the activity, to resolve 

conflicts and to notify the communities 

of any changes in the operation. 

Quintillion has prepared a Plan of 

Cooperation (POC), which was 

developed by identifying and evaluating 

any potential effects the proposed cablelaying operation might have on seasonal 

abundance that is relied upon for 

subsistence use. 

Specifically, the vessels that 

Quintillion will use will participate in 

the Automatic Identification System 

(AIS) vessel-tracking system allowing 

the vessel to be tracked and located in 

real time via the Marine Exchange of 

Alaska (MEA). Quintillion will sponsor 

memberships in the MEA such that 

local subsistence groups can monitor 

Quintillion vessel movements. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38890 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

In addition, Quintillion will distribute 

a daily activity report by email to all 

interested parties. Daily reports will 

include vessel activity, location, 

subsistence information, and any 

potential hazards. 

Quintillion project vessels will 

monitor local marine VHF channels as 

requested for local traffic and will use 

log books to assist in the standardization 

of record keeping. 

A copy of the POC can be viewed on 

the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/research.htm. 

In addition, Quintillion shall monitor 

the positions of all of its vessels and 

will schedule timing and location of 

cable-laying segments to avoid any areas 

where subsistence activity is normally 

planned. 

For vessels transiting to and from 

Quintillion’s project area, Quintillion 

shall implement the following 

measures: 

(A) Vessels transiting in the Beaufort 

Sea east of Bullen Point to the Canadian 

border shall remain at least 5 miles 

offshore during transit along the coast, 

provided ice and sea conditions allow. 

During transit in the Chukchi Sea, 

vessels shall remain as far offshore as 

weather and ice conditions allow, and at 

all times at least 5 miles offshore. 

(B) From August 31 to October 31, 

transiting vessels in the Chukchi Sea or 

Beaufort Sea shall remain at least 20 

miles offshore of the coast of Alaska 

from Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt 

Point on the east side of Smith Bay in 

the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions 

or an emergency that threatens the 

safety of the vessel or crew prevents 

compliance with this requirement. This 

condition shall not apply to vessels 

actively engaged in transit to or from a 

coastal community to conduct crew 

changes or logistical support operations. 

(C) Vessels shall be operated at speeds 

necessary to ensure no physical contact 

with whales occurs, and to make any 

other potential conflicts with bowheads 

or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds shall 

be less than 10 knots when within 1.6 

kilometers (1 mile) of feeding whales or 

whale aggregations (6 or more whales in 

a group). 

(D) If any vessel inadvertently 

approaches within 1.6 kilometers (1 

mile) of observed bowhead whales, 

except when providing emergency 

assistance to whalers or in other 

emergency situations, the vessel 

operator will take reasonable 

precautions to avoid potential 

interaction with the bowhead whales by 

taking one or more of the following 

actions, as appropriate: 

• Reducing vessel speed to less than 

5 knots within 900 feet of the whale(s); 

• Steering around the whale(s) if 

possible; 

• Operating the vessel(s) in such a 

way as to avoid separating members of 

a group of whales from other members 

of the group; 

• Operating the vessel(s) to avoid 

causing a whale to make multiple 

changes in direction; and 

• Checking the waters immediately 

adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that 

no whales will be injured when the 

propellers are engaged. 

(E) Quintillion shall complete 

operations in time to ensure that vessels 

associated with the project complete 

transit through the Bering Strait to a 

point south of 59 degrees North latitude 

no later than November 15, 2017. Any 

vessel that encounters weather or ice 

that will prevent compliance with this 

date shall coordinate its transit through 

the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 

degrees North latitude with local 

subsistence communities. 

(F) Quintillion vessels shall, weather 

and ice permitting, transit east of St. 

Lawrence Island and no closer than 10 

miles from the shore of St. Lawrence 

Island. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s measures, NMFS has 

determined that the prescribed 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

subsistence uses. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for authorizations 

must include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the proposed 

action area. Effective reporting is critical 

both to compliance as well as ensuring 

that the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Monitoring Measures 

Monitoring will provide information 

on the numbers of marine mammals 

affected by the subsea cable-laying and 

O&M operation and facilitate real-time 

mitigation to prevent injury of marine 

mammals by vessel traffic. These goals 

will be accomplished in the Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort seas during 2017 

by conducting vessel-based monitoring 

to document marine mammal presence 

and distribution in the vicinity of the 

operation area. 

Visual monitoring by protected 

species observers (PSO) during subsea 

cable-laying and O&M operations, and 

periods when the operation is not 

occurring, will provide information on 

the numbers of marine mammals 

potentially affected by the activity. 

Vessel-based PSOs onboard the vessels 

will record the numbers and species of 

marine mammals observed in the area 

and any observable reaction of marine 

mammals to the cable-laying operation 

in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort 

seas. 

Vessel-Based Protected Species 

Observers 

Vessel-based visual monitoring for 

marine mammals shall be conducted by 

NMFS-approved PSOs throughout the 

period of subsea cable-laying and O&M 

activities. PSOs shall be stationed 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38891 

aboard the cable-laying vessel 

throughout the duration of the subsea 

cable-laying and O&M operations. 

A sufficient number of PSOs would be 

required onboard each survey vessel to 

meet the following criteria: 

• 100 percent monitoring coverage 

during all periods of cable-laying and 

O&M operations in daylight; 

• Maximum of 4 consecutive hours 

on watch per PSO; and 

• Maximum of 12 hours of watch 

time per day per PSO. 

PSO teams will consist of Inupiat 

observers and experienced field 

biologists. Each vessel will have an 

experienced field crew leader to 

supervise the PSO team. The total 

number of PSOs may decrease later in 

the season as the duration of daylight 

decreases. 

(1) PSOs Qualification and Training 

Lead PSOs and most PSOs will be 

individuals with experience as 

observers during marine mammal 

monitoring projects in Alaska or other 

offshore areas in recent years. New or 

inexperienced PSOs must be paired 

with an experienced PSO or 

experienced field biologist so that the 

quality of marine mammal observations 

and data recording is kept consistent. 

Resumes for candidate PSOs will be 

provided to NMFS for review and 

acceptance of their qualifications. 

Inupiat observers would be experienced 

in the region and familiar with the 

marine mammals of the area. All 

observers will complete an observer 

training course designed to familiarize 

individuals with monitoring and data 

collection procedures. 

(2) Establishing Zone of Influence 

A PSO would establish a ZOI where 

the received level is 120 dB during 

Qunitillion’s subsea cable-laying and 

O&M operations and conduct marine 

mammal monitoring during the 

operation. The measured 120 dB ZOI is 

5.35 km from the cable-laying vessel. 

(3) Marine Mammal Observation 

Protocol 

PSOs shall watch for marine 

mammals from the best available 

vantage point on the survey vessels, 

typically the bridge. PSOs shall scan 

systematically with the unaided eye and 

7 x 50 reticle binoculars, and nightvision and infra-red equipment when 

needed. Personnel on the bridge shall 

assist the marine mammal observer(s) in 

watching for marine mammals; 

however, bridge crew observations will 

not be used in lieu of PSO observation 

efforts. 

Monitoring shall consist of recording 

of the following information: 

1. The species, group size, age/size/ 

sex categories (if determinable), the 

general behavioral activity, heading (if 

consistent), bearing and distance from 

vessel, sighting cue, behavioral pace, 

and apparent reaction of all marine 

mammals seen near the vessel (e.g., 

none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, 

etc.); 

2. The time, location, heading, speed, 

and activity of the vessel, along with sea 

state, visibility, cloud cover and sun 

glare at (I) any time a marine mammal 

is sighted, (II) at the start and end of 

each watch, and (III) during a watch 

(whenever there is a change in one or 

more variable); 

3. The identification of all vessels that 

are visible within 5 km of the vessel 

from which observation is conducted 

whenever a marine mammal is sighted 

and the time observed; 

4. Any identifiable marine mammal 

behavioral response (sighting data 

should be collected in a manner that 

will not detract from the PSO’s ability 

to detect marine mammals); 

5. Any adjustments made to operating 

procedures; and 

6. Visibility during observation 

periods so that total estimates of take 

can be corrected accordingly. 

Distances to nearby marine mammals 

will be estimated with binoculars (7 x 

50 binoculars) containing a reticle to 

measure the vertical angle of the line of 

sight to the animal relative to the 

horizon. Observers may use a laser 

rangefinder to test and improve their 

abilities for visually estimating 

distances to objects in the water. 

Quintillion shall use the best available 

technology to improve detection 

capability during periods of fog and 

other types of inclement weather. Such 

technology might include night-vision 

goggles or binoculars as well as other 

instruments that incorporate infrared 

technology. 

PSOs shall understand the importance 

of classifying marine mammals as 

‘‘unknown’’ or ‘‘unidentified’’ if they 

cannot identify the animals to species 

with confidence. In those cases, they 

shall note any information that might 

aid in the identification of the marine 

mammal sighted. For example, for an 

unidentified mysticete whale, the 

observers should record whether the 

animal had a dorsal fin. Additional 

details about unidentified marine 

mammal sightings, such as ‘‘blow only,’’ 

‘‘mysticete with (or without) a dorsal 

fin,’’ ‘‘seal splash,’’ etc., shall be 

recorded. 

(4) Monitoring Measures That Support 

Impact Analyses 

Quintillion shall evaluate whether the 

angle of the vessel relative to the 

recording location has any effect on the 

received levels for its 2016 SSV tests, 

and work with the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory (NMML) to 

compare the SSV received levels with 

the levels obtained by the mooringbased PAM data to determine whether 

the results from the SSV testing need to 

be corrected based on the bearing of the 

recording equipment to the ship. The 

results will be included in the 2017 

monitoring report. 

Quintillion will contribute $20,000 to 

the University of Alaska, Fairbanks for 

their bowhead whale feeding study in 

the eastern Chukchi Sea or western 

Beaufort Sea during the open water 

season. 

Quintillion shall undertake efforts to 

further evaluate potential impacts of the 

2016 activities on bowhead whales and, 

subsequently, whaling efforts, if being 

requested. 

Quintillion shall make the marine 

mammal and underwater acoustic data 

it collected in 2016 and the data it will 

collect in 2017 publicly available. 

(5) Passive Acoustics Monitoring 

Quintillion shall conduct sound 

source verification on the vibro plow 

that would be used for cable-laying in 

the Beaufort Sea. 

Reporting Measures 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to the Director, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

within 90 days after the end of 

Quintillion’s subsea cable-laying and 

O&M operations in the Bering, Chukchi, 

and Beaufort seas. The report will 

describe in detail: 

1. Summaries of monitoring effort 

(e.g., total hours, total distances, and 

marine mammal distribution through 

the project period, accounting for sea 

state and other factors affecting 

visibility and detectability of marine 

mammals); 

2. Summaries that represent an initial 

level of interpretation of the efficacy, 

measurements, and observations; 

3. Analyses of the effects of various 

factors influencing detectability of 

marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number 

of observers, and fog/glare); 

4. Species composition, occurrence, 

and distribution of marine mammal 

sightings, including date, water depth, 

numbers, age/size/gender categories (if 

determinable), group sizes, and ice 

cover; 

5. Estimates of uncertainty in all take 

estimates, with uncertainty expressed 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38892 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

by the presentation of confidence limits, 

a minimum-maximum, posterior 

probability distribution, or another 

applicable method, with the exact 

approach to be selected based on the 

sampling method and data available; 

and 

6. A clear comparison of authorized 

takes and the level of actual estimated 

takes. 

Quintillion shall provide NMFS with 

a draft monitoring report within 90 days 

of the conclusion of the subsea cablelaying and O&M activities or within 90 

days of the expiration of the IHA, 

whichever comes first. The draft report 

shall be subject to review and comment 

by NMFS. Any recommendations made 

by NMFS must be addressed in the 

report prior to acceptance by NMFS. 

The draft report will be considered the 

final report for this activity under this 

Authorization if NMFS has not provided 

comments and recommendations within 

90 days of receipt of the draft report. 

Notification of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA, such as a serious 

injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, 

gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 

Quintillion will immediately cease the 

specified activities and immediately 

report the incident to the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. 

The report would include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with Quintillion to 

determine the necessary measures to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Quintillion would not be 

able to resume its activities until 

notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 

telephone. 

In the event that Quintillion discovers 

a dead marine mammal, and the lead 

PSO determines that the cause of the 

death is unknown and the death is 

relatively recent (i.e., in less than a 

moderate state of decomposition as 

described in the next paragraph), 

Quintillion would immediately report 

the incident to the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline. The 

report would include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above. Activities would be able to 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Quintillion to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities would be appropriate. 

In the event that Quintillion discovers 

a dead marine mammal, and the lead 

PSO determines that the death is not 

associated with or related to the 

activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., 

previously wounded animal, carcass 

with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

Quintillion would report the incident to 

the Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the NMFS Alaska Stranding 

Hotline, within 24 hours of the 

discovery. Quintillion would provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Quintillion can continue its operations 

under such a case. 

Monitoring Plan Peer Review 

The MMPA requires that monitoring 

plans be independently peer reviewed 

‘‘where the proposed activity may affect 

the availability of a species or stock for 

taking for subsistence uses’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this 

requirement, NMFS’ implementing 

regulations state, ‘‘Upon receipt of a 

complete monitoring plan, and at its 

discretion, [NMFS] will either submit 

the plan to members of a peer review 

panel for review or within 60 days of 

receipt of the proposed monitoring plan, 

schedule a workshop to review the 

plan’’ (50 CFR 216.108(d)). 

NMFS convened an independent peer 

review panel to review Quintillion’s 

4MP for the proposed subsea cablelaying and O&M operations in the 

Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The 

panel met via web conference in late 

March 2017, and provided comments to 

NMFS in April 2017. The full panel 

report can be viewed on the Internet at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.html. 

NMFS provided the panel with 

Quintillion’s IHA application and 

monitoring plan and asked the panel to 

answer the following questions: 

1. Will the applicant’s stated 

objectives effectively further the 

understanding of the impacts of their 

activities on marine mammals and 

otherwise accomplish the goals stated 

above? If not, how should the objectives 

be modified to better accomplish the 

goals above? 

2. Can the applicant achieve the 

stated objectives based on the methods 

described in the plan? 

3. Are there technical modifications to 

the proposed monitoring techniques and 

methodologies proposed by the 

applicant that should be considered to 

better accomplish their stated 

objectives? 

4. Are there techniques not proposed 

by the applicant (i.e., additional 

monitoring techniques or 

methodologies) that should be 

considered for inclusion in the 

applicant’s monitoring program to better 

accomplish their stated objectives? 

5. What is the best way for an 

applicant to present their data and 

results (formatting, metrics, graphics, 

etc.) in the required reports that are to 

be submitted to NMFS (i.e., 90-day 

report and comprehensive report)? 

The peer-review panel report contains 

recommendations that the panel 

members felt were applicable to the 

Quintillion’s monitoring plans. 

Specifically, the panel recommended 

the following: 

(1) When marine mammals are 

sighted within the Level B harassment 

zone, Quintillion should reduce, where 

possible, all sound sources that have the 

potential to exceed the threshold for 

Level B harassment. These may include 

reducing speed or temporarily stopping 

winch operations, reducing underwater 

ploughing speed, temporarily stopping 

jetting, stopping or reducing beacon 

pinging rate and other subordinate noise 

sources to decrease the project’s overall 

acoustic footprint; 

(2) Quintillion continue to work with 

subsistence organizations, such as the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC), and the Arctic Waterways 

Safety Committee (AWSC) to identify 

local contacts in each community that 

Quintillion can regularly communicate 

with to inform the communities and 

accept feedback about their ongoing 

operations; 

(3) Quintillion evaluate whether the 

angle of the vessel relative to the 

recording location has any effect on the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38893 

received levels for its 2016 SSV tests, 

and work with the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory (NMML) to 

compare the SSV received levels with 

the levels obtained by the mooringbased PAM data to determine whether 

the results from the SSV testing need to 

be corrected based on the bearing of the 

recording equipment to the ship; 

(4) Because it is unlikely Quintillion 

will be able to minimize disturbance to 

marine mammals and is not proposing 

to conduct pre-activity, post-activity, or 

far-field monitoring, Quintillion should 

contribute to existing or ongoing studies 

to identify, quantify, or forecast 

bowhead whale prey and its associated 

distribution in the eastern Chukchi Sea 

or western Beaufort Sea during the open 

water season; 

(5) Quintillion undertake efforts to 

further evaluate potential impacts of the 

2016 activities on bowhead whales and, 

subsequently, whaling efforts. If data 

warrant a thorough evaluation, 

Quintillion could contribute financially 

to analysis efforts; and 

(6) Quintillion stated in its IHA 

application that it would forego 

additional SSV testing on the vibro 

plow, instead of using SSV tests 

conducted on similar equipment near 

France in 2014 as a proxy. If so, 

Quintillion should provide additional 

details to NMFS and the Panel to justify 

why conducting an SSV on the vibro 

plow in the Arctic is not warranted. 

Specifically, how might factors such as 

difference in the substrate type, depth of 

the ocean bottom, sound speed profile, 

and plow speed and operation mode 

affect the sound radiation and 

propagation from the vibro plow when 

operating off France compared to in the 

Beaufort Sea. 

NMFS discussed the peer review 

panel report and the list of 

recommendations with Quintillion. For 

the aforementioned monitoring 

measures, NMFS requires and 

Quintillion agrees to implement the 

following: 

(1) Continue to work with subsistence 

organizations, such as the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), 

and the Arctic Waterways Safety 

Committee (AWSC) to identify local 

contacts in each community that 

Quintillion can regularly communicate 

with to inform the communities and 

accept feedback about their ongoing 

operations; 

(2) Contribute $20,000 to the 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks for their 

bowhead whale feeding study in the 

eastern Chukchi Sea or western Beaufort 

Sea during the open water season; and 

(3) Conduct sound source verification 

on the vibro plow that would be used 

for cable-laying in the Beaufort Sea. 

Regarding whether the angle of the 

vessel relative to the recording location 

has any effect on the received levels for 

its 2016 SSV tests, Quintillion’s 

contractor Illingworth and Rodkin has 

already examined these question 

regarding the 2016 data. The results will 

be included in the 2017 monitoring 

report. For SSV tests planned in 2017, 

acoustic recordings from all angles will 

be examined and the results will be 

included in the 2017 monitoring report. 

Regarding the recommendation that 

require Quintillion to undertake efforts 

to further evaluate potential impacts of 

the 2016 activities on bowhead whales 

and subsequently, whaling efforts, 

Quintillion states that it will continue to 

support scientific evaluations of the 

potential impact of 2016 activities on 

bowhead whales and, consequently, 

whaling efforts, by providing vessel and 

observation data and other in-kind 

support as appropriate. 

However, regarding the 

recommendation that requires 

Quintillion to reduce vessel speed or 

temporarily stopping winch operation, 

reduce underwater ploughing speed, or 

temporarily stop jetting, these measures 

are not feasible during cable-laying 

activities as they would cause safety 

concerns or affecting the cable-laying 

and maintenance operations. Therefore, 

this measure is not included in the IHA 

issued to Quintillion. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as ‘‘an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, this introductory 

discussion of our analyses applies to all 

the species listed in Table 6, given that 

the anticipated effects of Quintillion’s 

subsea cable-laying and O&M operations 

on marine mammals (taking into 

account the prescribed mitigation) are 

expected to be relatively similar in 

nature. Where there are meaningful 

differences between species or stocks, or 

groups of species, in anticipated 

individual responses to activities, 

impact of expected take on the 

population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described separately in the 

analysis below. 

No injuries or mortalities are 

anticipated to occur as a result of 

Quintillion’s subsea cable-laying and 

O&M operations, and none are 

authorized. Additionally, animals in the 

area are not expected to incur hearing 

impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or nonauditory physiological effects. The takes 

that are anticipated and authorized are 

expected to be limited to short-term 

Level B behavioral harassment in the 

form of brief startling reaction and/or 

temporary vacating the area. 

Any effects on marine mammals are 

generally expected to be restricted to 

avoidance of a limited area around 

Quintillion’s proposed activities and 

short-term changes in behavior, falling 

within the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level 

B harassment.’’ Mitigation measures, 

such as controlled vessel speed and 

dedicated marine mammal observers, 

will ensure that takes are within the 

level being analyzed. In all cases, the 

effects are expected to be short-term, 

with no lasting biological consequence. 

Of the 13 marine mammal species 

likely to occur in the proposed cablelaying area, bowhead, humpback, fin 

whales, ringed and bearded seals, and 

Steller sea lion are listed as endangered 

or threatened under the ESA. These 

species are also designated as 

‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA. However, 

the levels of potential impacts to these 

species are expected to be minor and 

brief in the form of short-term changes 

in behavior, as with other species 

discussed above. The behavioral 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38894 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

disturbances caused by exposure to 

elevated noise levels from cable-laying 

and maintenance activities are not 

expected to affect the population level 

of these species. None of the other 

species that may occur in the project 

area are listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA or 

designated as depleted under the 

MMPA. 

The project area of the Quintillion’s 

proposed activities is within areas that 

have been identified as biologically 

important areas (BIAs) for feeding for 

the gray and bowhead whales and for 

reproduction for gray whale during the 

summer and fall months (Clarke et al., 

2015). In addition, the coastal Beaufort 

Sea also serves as a migratory corridor 

during bowhead whale spring 

migration, as well as for their feeding 

and breeding activities. Additionally, 

the coastal area of Chukchi and Beaufort 

seas also serve as BIAs for beluga 

whales for their feeding and migration. 

However, the Quintillion’s proposed 

cable-laying and O&M operations would 

briefly transit through the area in a slow 

speed (600 meters per hour). As 

discussed earlier, the Level B behavioral 

harassment on marine mammals from 

the proposed activity is expected to be 

brief startling reaction and temporary 

vacating of the area. There are no longterm or biologically significant impacts 

to marine mammals expected from the 

proposed subsea cable-laying activity. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• No injury or hearing impairment is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Only Level B behavioral 

disturbances by exposed marine 

mammals are likely; 

• The levels and duration of marine 

mammals exposure to noises are low 

and brief; and 

• Only a small fraction of marine 

mammal populations is expected to be 

affected. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

prescribed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the proposed 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

all affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The requested takes represent less 

than 5.07 percent of all populations or 

stocks potentially impacted (see Table 6 

in this document). These take estimates 

represent the percentage of each species 

or stock that could be taken by Level B 

behavioral harassment. The numbers of 

marine mammals estimated to be taken 

are small proportions of the total 

populations of the affected species or 

stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the prescribed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS finds that small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the population size of the affected 

species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as: ‘‘an impact resulting from 

the specified activity: (1) That is likely 

to reduce the availability of the species 

to a level insufficient for a harvest to 

meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing 

the marine mammals to abandon or 

avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly 

displacing subsistence users; or (iii) 

Placing physical barriers between the 

marine mammals and the subsistence 

hunters; and (2) That cannot be 

sufficiently mitigated by other measures 

to increase the availability of marine 

mammals to allow subsistence needs to 

be met. 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

Quintillion worked with the cablelanding communities, tribal/subsistence 

organizations, and co-management 

groups to develop mutually agreed 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

These measures rely strongly on 

effective communication between 

operations and communities to ensure 

that Quintillion’s proposed subsea 

cable-laying and O&M operations will 

not have unmitigable adverse impact to 

subsistence use of marine mammals in 

the affected areas. In addition, the 

issued IHA requires Quintillion to 

implement time and area limitations 

and vessel speed restrictions when 

passing through certain subsistence 

areas and/or encountering bowhead 

whales. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

prescribed mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has determined that 

there will not be an unmitigable adverse 

impact on subsistence uses from 

Quintillion’s proposed activities. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the NMFS Alaska Region 

Protected Resources Division Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

Within the project area, the bowhead, 

humpback, and fin whales are listed as 

endangered and the ringed and bearded 

seals and Steller sea lion are listed as 

threatened under the ESA. NMFS’ 

Permits and Conservation Division has 

initiated consultation with staff in 

NMFS’ Alaska Region Protected 

Resources Division under section 7 of 

the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to 

Quintillion under section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA for this activity. In June 

2017, NMFS finished conducting its 

section 7 consultation and issued a 

Biological Opinion concluding that the 

issuance of the IHA associated with 

Quintillion’s subsea cable-laying and 

maintenance work in the Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort seas during the 

2017 open-water season is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the endangered bowhead, humpback, 

and fin whales, and Steller sea lion. No 

critical habitat has been designated for 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38895 

these species, therefore none will be 

affected. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Quintillion 

for the take of marine mammals, by 

Level B harassment, incidental to 

conducting subsea cable-laying 

operations and maintenance work in the 

Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas 

during the 2017 open-water season, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: August 10, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17305 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Fishermen’s 

Contingency Fund 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before October 16, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at pracomments@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instruments and instructions should be 

directed to Paul Marx, Chief, Financial 

Services Division, NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries Service, (301) 427– 

8752 or paul.marx@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This request is for extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. United States (U.S.) 

commercial fishermen may file claims 

for compensation for losses of, or 

damage to, fishing gear or vessels, plus 

50 percent of resulting economic losses, 

attributable to oil and gas activities on 

the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. To 

obtain compensation, applicants must 

comply with requirements set forth in 

50 CFR part 296. 

The requirements include a ‘‘report’’ 

within 15 days of the date the vessel 

first returns to port after the casualty 

incident to gain a presumption of 

eligible causation, and an ‘‘application’’ 

within 90 days of when the applicant 

first became aware of the loss and/or 

damage. 

The report is NOAA Form 88–166 and 

it requests identifying information such 

as: Respondent’s name; address; social 

security number; and casualty location. 

The information in the report is usually 

completed by NOAA during a telephone 

call with the respondent. 

The application is NOAA Form 88– 

164 and it requires the respondent to 

provide information on the property and 

economic losses and/or damages 

including type of damage; purchase date 

and price of lost/damaged gear; and 

income from recent fishing trips. It also 

includes an affidavit by which the 

applicant attests to the truthfulness of 

the claim. 

II. Method of Collection 

Respondents may telephone NOAA 

and provide the information for the 

report verbally or submit a paper or 

electronic report. Respondents have a 

choice of either electronic or paper 

forms for the application. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0082. 

Form Number: NOAA Forms 88–164, 

88–166. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; business or other for-profit 

organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

20. 

Estimated Time per Response:15 

minutes for a report and 7 hours, 45 

minutes for an application. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 160. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $500 in recordkeeping/filing 

costs. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: August 11, 2017. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17296 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: Socioeconomics of Users and 

Non Users of Grays Reef National 

Marine Sanctuary. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0625. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Regular 

(reinstatement with changes of a 

previously approved information 

collection). 

Number of Respondents: 1,440. 

Average Hours per Response: 30 

minutes. 

Burden Hours: 293. 

Needs and Uses: This request is for a 

reinstatement, with changes, of a 

previous information collection. 

NOAA, through its National Ocean 

Service, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, is replicating a study done 

in 2010–2011 on users and non-users of 

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary 

(GRNMS) off the coast of Georgia. The 

study will support analysis of its current 

regulations to support management plan 

revision, which could include changes 

in regulations. The study will collect 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES