Application for the Incidental Harassment Authorization ... Application 2017.pdfwater depth. The...

Application for the Incidental Harassment

Authorization for the Taking of Pacific Walrus and

Polar Bears in Conjunction with the Quintillion

Subsea Operations Cable Project, 2017

January 2017

Prepared for:

Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC 201 E. 56th Avenue, #300 Anchorage, Alaska 99518

Prepared by:

Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. 6407 Brayton Drive, Suite 204 Anchorage, Alaska 99507 T: 907.344.3448 www.owlridgenrc.com

- Page Intentionally Left Blank -

Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC 2017 Quintillion Subsea Cable-Lay Project Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska

Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. iii 1/19/2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC ACTIVITY .................................................................................. 1

1.1. Project Details .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.1.1. 2017 Activities ................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.2. Vessels ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3. Cable-Lay Tools ................................................................................................................ 5 1.1.4. Ice Management ................................................................................................................ 7

1.2. Acoustical Sources ....................................................................................................................... 8

2. DATES, DURATION, AND SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL REGION ...................................... 10

3. SPECIES AND NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS ............................................................. 10

4. STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE AFFECTED SPECIES ............................................ 11

4.1. Pacific Walrus ............................................................................................................................ 11 4.2. Polar Bear ................................................................................................................................... 14

5. TYPE OF INCIDENTAL TAKING AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED .................................. 16

6. HARASSMENT ESTIMATES FOR WALRUS AND POLAR BEAR ....................................... 16

6.1. Estimating Numbers of Level B Harassments ........................................................................... 17 6.1.1. Ensonified Area ............................................................................................................... 17 6.1.2. Pacific Walrus Density .................................................................................................... 18 6.1.3. Walrus Level B Exposure Calculations and Take Request ............................................. 19 6.1.4. Polar Bear Take Request ................................................................................................. 19 6.1.5. Take Request as a Percentage of Stock ........................................................................... 20

7. ANTICIPATED IMPACT OF THE ACTIVITY ON THE SPECIES OR STOCK ................... 20

8. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON SUBSISTENCE USES.............................................................. 21

9. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON HABITAT ................................................................................. 22

9.1. Pacific Walrus Habitat and Prey Resources ............................................................................... 22 9.2. Polar Bear Habitat and Prey Resources ..................................................................................... 23 9.3. Potential Project Impacts ........................................................................................................... 23

10. ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF HABITAT IMPACTS ON MARINE MAMMALS ................. 24

11. MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................................................ 24

12. PLAN OF COOPERATION ......................................................................................................... 24

13. MONITORING AND REPORTING ............................................................................................ 25

14. SUGGESTED MEANS OF COORDINATION ........................................................................... 25

15. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 25


Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. iv 1/19/2017

Appendices

A: Illingworth & Rodkin Sound Verification Report B: 2017 Plan of Cooperation C: Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan


Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. 1 1/19/2017

1. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC ACTIVITY

In 2016 Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC (Quintillion), installed substantial portions of a subsea fiber-optic cable network (the project) along the northern and western coasts of Alaska to provide high-speed internet connectivity to six rural Alaska communities. When completed, the subsea fiber-optic cable network will link with an existing North Slope terrestrial‐based fiber-optic line. The project will consist of 1,904 kilometers (km) (1,183 miles [mi]) of submerged fiber-optic cable that includes a main trunk line and six branch lines to onshore facilities in Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Barrow, and Oliktok Point (Figure 1-1).

The 2016 program successfully installed the vast majority (96%) of the cable, but did not complete the entire project. Work that will carry over into the 2017 season includes: 76-km (47-mi) from where the cable exits the Horizontal Directionally Drilled (HDD) pipe toward the Oliktok branching unit or BU (Figure 1-2), system testing, and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of any areas that do not meet testing requirements. O&M activity could occur at any portion of the cable and could involve retrieving, repairing, and reburying cable. O&M activities for the purpose of this application also include post-lay inspection (PLI) of specific areas where cable burial depth may have been limited, post-lay burial (PLB) of any cable not adequately buried during original cable-laying (especially the exposed branching units (BUs), splices that cannot be buried with a sea plow), and concrete mattress placement. Up to four 6 m x 3 m (19.6 ft x 9.8 ft) concrete mattresses will be placed over three branching units (Nome, Point Hope, and Wainwright) to protect them from ice scour.

The cable-lay ship, cable-lay barges, and support tugs proposed for the project use thrusters for dynamic positioning and anchor handling during cable-lay operations. Further, the cable ship generates cavitation with drive propellers when pulling the sea plow used to install cable, and the barges generate noise when winching and using the vibro plow to trench for the cable-lay operation. The noises generated by these sources have a possibility of acoustically harassing marine mammals, a form of “take” as defined under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and thus are subject to governance under MMPA. In addition, Quintillion’s proposed project might incidentally disturb walrus or polar bears during ice management activities. Incidental and unintentional harassment takes are permitted with the issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). MMPA identifies 14 specific items that must be addressed when applying for an IHA, which allow the USFWS to fully evaluate whether the proposed actions remain incidental and unintentional. The 14 items are addressed below relative to the 2017 phase of the project.



Figure 1-1. Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC’s proposed fiber optics cable network.

Figure 1-2. Oliktok branch route showing the nearshore and offshore sections.



1.1. Project Details

1.1.1. 2017 Activities

All the cable-lay planned for 2016 was accomplished with one exception: the Oliktok branch route between Oliktok Point and 76 km (47 mi) towards the Oliktok BU (Figure 1-2). Quintillion intends to complete the 76-km (47-mi) Oliktok segment in summer 2017 using a variety of cable-lay equipment, depending on water depth. The onshore work at Oliktok Point was completed in 2016, which included installation of the HDD and land-based facilities, although no cable was installed at Oliktok Point or in the HDD.

The branch line will be addressed in three sections:

• Section 1: An approximately 6.0-km (3.7-mi) very shallow nearshore segment (from the HDD exit to approximately Kilometer Point [KP] 6.5) where trenching will occur using a construction barge equipped with a vibro plow. The barge will winch itself along the route using moored anchors. The moored anchors will be first placed by a pontoon barge that will be positioned in place with a small river tug. The moorings will be placed with a derrick operating from the deck of the barge. The pontoon barge will also be used to retrieve the mooring after the cable is laid. Dominant noise will emanate from the river tug maneuvering the barges. The tug will not pull anchors along this section.

• Section 2: An approximately 12.5-km (7.8-mi) transition section (KP 6.5 to KP 16) where the work will be conducted from the construction barge again using a vibro plow. Here the barge will winch along anchor lines as within Section 1, but the anchors will be placed and pulled by a mid-size 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.

Quintillion intends to begin operations at Oliktok Point as early as possible in 2017, which may require ice management activities (see Section 1.1.4).

In addition to the activities described above, Quintillion plans to conduct an O&M program in 2017, whereby the cable system is tested for faults and repaired as needed (using the Ile de Batz). Repair operations would involve retrieving, repairing, 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 an ROV equipped with a jetting tool (see Section 1.1.3).

1.1.2. Vessels

The 2016 offshore (waters >12 meters [m]; >39 ft feet [ft] deep) cable-lay operations were conducted by the Ile de Brehat (Figure 1-2) and its sister ship the Ile de Sein. The third sister of the Alcatel cable ships, the Ile de Batz, will be used in the 2017 operations. As with the sister ships, the Ile de Batz is 140 m (460 ft) in length, 23 m (77 ft) in breadth, and is propelled by two 4,000 kilowatt (kW) fixed-pitch propellers.



The ship will be used to pull the sea plow during cable-lay operations along Section 3 of the Oliktok route, and it will also be used during any cable retrieval and reburial operations during O&M activities, and during PLI, PLB, and mattressing operations.

Prior to laying cable along Section 3 of the Oliktok route, the Ile de Batz will also prepare the seafloor for cable lay by making several passes along the route with the sea plow. This would include a 60-km pass with the plow set to 2 m deep, a 23-km pass with the plow set to 3-m depth, and two 17-km passes set to 4-m depth, followed by actual laying of 60 km of cable. Thus, the Ile de Batz will make five passes of varied length, totaling 187 km (116 mi), along Section 3.

Section 1 of the Oliktok branch will be trenched using a vibro plow attached to a construction barge, such as the Crowley 218 (Figure 1-3). Because Section 1 is too shallow for an ocean-class anchor-handling tug to operate, a series of moored anchors will be first placed along this 6 km route, which the barge will use to winch long the route pulling the vibri plow. The moorings will be placed using a small, pontoon barge available at Prudhoe Bay. The barge will be positioned using a shallow-draft river tug and the moorings set, and later retrieved, using a derrick operating from the barge deck (the river tug would be too small to handle the moorings involved).

The construction barge will continue to lay cable along Section 2 using the vibro plow, with the only difference being that in this section the water is deep enough for the larger anchor-handling tug, which will place and retrieve anchors that the barge will use to winch along the cable route.

Figure 1-2. The cable-lay ship C/S Ile de Brehat.



Figure 1-3. The Crowley 218 barge.

1.1.3. Cable-Lay Tools

The 2017 operations will use various cable-lay tools depending on location and water depth. Cable along Sections 1 and 2 will be laid using a vibro plow (Figure 1-4) pulled by the winching barge. As the name suggests, the tool has a narrow plowshare that vibrates into the seafloor sediment. Maximum trenching speed is less than 1 kilometer per hour (kph) (<0.6 miles per hour [mph]).



Figure 1-4. Example vibro plow.

Pre-trenching and cable lay along Section three will involve the Ile de Batz pulling a heavy-duty sea plow (Figure 1-5). The plow has a submerged weight of 25 tonnes (27.6 tons) and is pulled by the tow wire and the cable fed through a cable depressor that pushes it into the trench. Burial depth (generally set at 4 m) is controlled by adjusting the front skids. The nominal tow speed is approximately 0.6 kph (0.4 mph).

Figure 1-5. The SMD HD3 plow used during the 2016 cable-lay operations.



Once cable laying of the Oliktok segment is completed, the entire system (main trunk and 6 branch lines) will be tested. If any system faults are detected, fault repair (O&M) would include retrieving a cable section, repairing it aboard the Ile de class cable ship, and, if required, reburying the cable using a jetted remote operating vehicle (ROV). The planned ROV (ROVJET 400 series, Figure 1-6) is 5.8 m (19.0 ft) long and 3.4 m (11.2 ft) wide and weighs 9.1 tonnes (10 tons), and has both a main and forward jet tool capable of trenching to 2 m (6.6 ft) depth.

Figure 1-6. The ROVJET.

1.1.4. Ice Management

Increased air temperatures in the Arctic over the past decade have resulted in a greater discharge of warmer freshwater from the Mackenzie River into the Beaufort Sea (Wood et al. 2013). In the past, heavy pack ice limited the discharge rate, but with the recent loss of denser multi-year ice, a larger freshwater plume is allowed to develop in the sea. Further, increased air temperatures have resulted in a warmer Mackenzie River watershed leading to an even warmer river plume. Finally, warmer air has intensified the Beaufort High (a winter high-pressure center over the Beaufort Sea) resulting in increased easterly winds, which extend the plume westward along the Alaska Beaufort Sea shoreline (Wood et al. 2013). As a consequence, the Alaska Beaufort Sea shoreline generally becomes ice-free sooner than waters nearer Point Barrow or portions of the northern Chukchi Sea.

The implication of this melt pattern is that Oliktok Point is expected to become ice-free and available for cable-lay work before sea ice has fully retreated from around Point Barrow. Quintillion does not intend to conduct cable-lay operations in the vicinity of sea ice, and plans to charter vessels in the Prudhoe Bay area



for Sections 1 and 2 as available. However, the Ile de Batz will have to travel around Point Barrow to access the Oliktok route. If sea ice is still present when the Ile de Batz arrives, Quintillion will charter a mid-class tug to clear a path for the cable ship through the ice field, by pushing individual ice floes aside. Actual breaking of ice would occur only in the event of an unexpected safety concern.

1.2. Acoustical Sources There are a number of acoustical sources associated with cable-lay operations including drive propellers, dynamic positioning thrusters, water jets, vibro plows, echo sounders, and positioning beacons. 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 noise emanating from the drive propellers while towing the sea plow also contributed significantly to the sound signature. Resistant seafloor sediments resulted in a need to increase power (resulting in increased cavitation) as compared to cable-lay operations at other locations. Thruster noise, the focus of previous SSVs (Nedwell et al. 2003, MacGillivary 2006, Samsung 2009, Hartin et al. 2011, Deepwater Wind 2013, Tetra Tech 2013), was largely subordinate to drive propeller noise. I&R (2016) determined that the distance to the NMFS Level B harassment threshold 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for continuous noise was 5.35 km (3.32 mi) when the Ile de Brehat was pulling the sea plow, which equates to a distance of only 29 m (95 ft) to the 160-dB isopleth, the USFWS Level B acoustical threshold for walrus. It is assumed that the same measurements apply for the Ile de Batz that will pull the sea plow during pre-trenching and cable-lay operations in the offshore segment of the Oliktok branch.

In addition to Ile de Batz sea plow operations (both pre-trenching and cable lay), cavitation noise potentially exceeding the USFWS Level B threshold for walrus expected during anchor-handling along Section 2, barge maneuvering along Section 1, and ice management operations. Anchor-handling and ice management would be conducted by the Vos Thalia, the same tug used in 2016, or a similar-sized tug. Barge maneuvering would be conducted by a small river tug.

Because of operational alternatives and weather, the Vos Thalia was not active during the period I&R conducted SSVs of the cable lay noise sources. There is no sound signature data on the 59-m (194-ft) Vos Thalia, but there is data on the much larger 72-m (236-ft) Katun and 84-m (276-ft) Tor Viking II while handling anchors or managing ice. Hannay et al. (2004) estimated the 1-m sound source for the Katun while anchor pulling at 184.4 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Applying the transmission loss of 17.36 Log R that I&R measured at Nome, yields a distance of 5.13 km to the 120-dB isopleth, and 26 m to the 160-dB isopleth. LGL/JASCO/Greeneridge (2014) measured the Tor Viking II during Shell’s 2012 drilling operations in the Chukchi Sea while it was anchor handling. They found cavitation noise to be 188 dB re 1 μPa (rms) at source during anchor setting at the Sivulliq drill site, which equates to a distance of 8.27 km (5.14 mi) to the 120-dB isopleth and 43 m (141 ft) to the 160-dB threshold using I&R’s transmission loss model of 17.36 Log R.

LGL/JASCO/Greeneridge (2014) also measured the Tor Viking II while conducting ice management activities. When the Tor Viking II was maneuvering ice, LGL/JASCO/Greeneridge (2014) estimated the



distance to the 120-dB isopleth at 9.6 km (6 mi), with distance to the 160-dB threshold less than 40 m (131 ft). Propeller cavitation, not physical ice contact with the vessel, is the primary sound source during ice management activities (Richardson et al. 1995).

Because both the Katun and Tor Viking II are much larger than the Vos Thalia (the Katun and Tor Viking II have bollard pulls of 157 and 200 tons, respectively, compared to only 70 tons for the Vos Thalia), their measurements represent conservative proxy values for the Quintillion operations. For this reason, the Katun radial distance measurement of 26 m to the 160-dB threshold was chosen to represent potential anchor handling (Section 2) and ice management operations by the Vos Thalia.

LouisDreyfus (2014) commissioned SOMME and NeoTek to conduct an SSV of various trenching equipment, including a vibro plow, operating offshore of France (Sea of Calvados) and determined the source level for the plow to be 176 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and estimated the radius to behavioral thresholds (120 dB) to be about 5 km (3 mi), using a conservative 15 Log R transmission loss. Using I&R’s 17.36 Log R transmission loss model yields a distance of only 1.69 km (1.05 mi) to the 120-dB isopleth and 9 m (30 ft) to the 160-dB threshold. Further, on this project the vibro plow would be operated from a barge, therefore, it is assumed that anchor-handling, not vibro plowing, would be the dominate noise source during barge operations in Section 2.

The small river tug that would maneuver the barges within Section 1 has not been identified; however, smaller tugs generally produce underwater noise <180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) when pulling (Richardson et al. 1995, Blackwell and Greene 2003). Blackwell and Greene (2003) measured 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 μPa (rms) at 1-m source when the tug was pushing, which increased to 178.9 dB re 1 μPa (rms) when thrusters were additionally operated during operated during docking maneuvers. Apply I&R’s 17.36 Log R transmission loss to 178.9 dB results in a radial distance to the 120-dB isopleth of 1.69 km and to the 160-dB threshold of 9 m (30 ft).

During O&M activities the primary noise source will be the 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 Hertz (Hz) to 140 Hz, and the measured (90th percentile) radius to the 120-dB isopleth was 2.3 km (1.4 mi), equating to a distance to the 160-dB threshold of about 15 m (49 ft). Because this radius is a measured value from Alaska Arctic waters, it likely is a better approximation of expected sound levels associated with thruster operation during O&M activities.

Other acoustical sources include the echo sounders, transceivers, 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 horizontal distances to the 120-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.

The estimated distances to the 160-dB isopleth, the continuous sound source threshold for Level B harassment of marine mammals, for proposed activities are listed in Table 1-2. The table also includes the estimated length of route that proposed activities would occur.

Table 1-2. Estimated distances to the Level B harassment threshold (160 dB) for walrus for each of Quintillion’s proposed 2017 cable-lay activities and route length over which these activities would occur.

Operation Distance to 160-dB Isopleth (m) Route Length (km)

Sea Plow (pre-trenching and cable lay Section 3) 29 187 Anchor Handling (Section 2) 26 9.5 Barge Maneuvering (Section 1) 9 6 Ice Management 26 50 ROV (Dynamic Positioning) 15 125

2. DATES, DURATION, AND SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL REGION

The request for incidental harassment authorization is for the 2017 open water season (July 1 to November 15). All associated activities, including mobilization, cable lay, and demobilization of survey and support crews, will occur inclusive of the above seasonal dates. All work will begin as soon as open water conditions allow access to the Oliktok route. O&M, PLI, PLB, and mattressing operations will begin once the Ile de Batz completes cable-lay responsibilities along the Oliktok branch and is then free to investigate cable faults and conduct PLI and PLB operations. Oliktok operations are not expected to require the full season, but the schedule of operations within the season may be adjusted as appropriate to account for sea ice dynamics.

O&M could occur anywhere within the project area (Figure 1-1). 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 must be retrieved, repaired, and laid back down. Depending on water depth, a single repair could result in re-laying several miles of cable. For this project, it was conservatively estimated that as much as 100 km (62 mi) of cable could be re-laid in the Bering and Chukchi seas, and 25 km (15.5 mi) in the Beaufort Sea. These are the metrics used to estimate marine mammal exposure for O&M activities.

3. SPECIES AND NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS

The proposed cable-lay activity could occur in three separate water bodies: the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, and in all cases after the ice has receded north for the season. For this application, the species of concern are the Pacific walrus and polar bear. Some male walrus summer in the Bering Sea (e.g., at



Round Island), and large numbers have recently begun to spend the summers hauled out on the beaches near Point Lay. Thus, a few feeding walrus might be observed during proposed cable-lay activity in these water bodies. Walrus might also be encountered on ice floes that drift into the work area, and might be disturbed during measures to protected vessels from ice. Polar bears are also found in the project area, and will likely be observed (especially on the barrier islands). However, there is little pathway for disturbing or injuring polar bears given the season of when the 2017 cable-lay activity would occur. The underwater noise generated by the cable-lay vessels would not acoustically harass bears because they largely keep their head out of the water, and any encounter during cable laying is likely of an animal approaching a vessel on its own accord. Neither species is expected to be encountered during O&M activities, because these operations would occur during the open water season, and would purposely avoid sea ice for safety reasons.

The greatest potential for encountering both walrus and polar bears would be during the early summer of 2017, should Quintillion need to manage ice during transit to Section 3 to begin pre-trenching activities. Table 3-1 lists abundance of Pacific walrus and polar bear in the project area.

Table 3-1. Pacific walrus and polar bear abundance in the project area.

Species Abundance Stock Source Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) 129,000 Pacific Speckman et al. (2011)

Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) 2,000 Chukchi/Bering Seas Lunn et al. (2002) Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) 1,526 Southern Beaufort Sea Regehr et al. (2006)

4. STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE AFFECTED SPECIES

4.1. Pacific Walrus Walrus are the second largest pinniped in the world, and the only species in the family Odobenidae. Males can weigh up to 1,500 kilograms (kg) (3,300 pounds [lb]) and females to 850 kg (1,875 lb). Two subspecies are recognized: the larger Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and the Atlantic walrus (O. r. rosmarus). A third subspecies, the Laptev walrus (O. r. laptevi), has been proposed, but recent molecular and morphometric analysis has shown that subspecies status is not warranted, and the Laptev walrus is the westernmost population of Pacific walrus (Lindqvist et al. 2009). The Pacific and Atlantic walrus diverged when separated during periods of glacial maxima (Harrington 2008).

Pacific walrus are highly pagophilic (ice-loving), depending on broken pack-ice to access offshore feeding areas (Fay 1982). Sea ice is important as a resting platform between feeding bouts, as substrate for breeding and calving, and as a means of transportation both north and south (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). It is especially important for females and calves. During light ice years when the pack ice edge moves north into the deep Arctic Basin where walrus cannot feed (due to too great a water depth), walrus will move to nearshore terrestrial haulout sites on both sides of the Chukchi Sea. The increased energetic demands in swimming to nearshore sites and the increased foraging competition once arriving, can reduce the fitness of individuals, while the increased frequency of the Chukchi Sea shelf being ice-free can have an overall population effect. The most recent population estimate of 129,000 (Speckman et al. 2011) is much lower than previous estimates and, although recent and past estimates are not directly comparable, they do suggest



a recent population decline, especially when coupled with recent observations of mortalities at haulout sites (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011).

The perceived population reduction and the increased number of ice-free years since 2002 (CBD 2008, Jay et al. 2012), was the basis for a 2008 petition submitted to USFWS to list the Pacific walrus as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; USFWS 2014). In 2011, the USFWS published a 12-month review determining that listing was warranted, but precluded due to higher listing priorities, and placed them on the candidate species list (USFWS 2011). The USFWS has agreed to list the species, or remove it from the candidate list, by 2017 (USFWS 2014).

Pacific walrus predominately prey on benthic bivalves, gastropods, and polychaetes (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009). Walrus distribution in the Bering and Chukchi seas is coincident with areas of high benthic biomass and waters shallow enough to where diving to the ocean bottom is energetically feasible (Costa and Gales 2003, Bluhm and Gradinger 2008). Bivalve clams of the genera Macoma, Serripes, and Mya appear to be the most important prey based on both stomach contents and prey availability at walrus concentration areas (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009, Jay et al. 2014). Annual distribution is also dependent on sea ice conditions relative to the locations of bivalve concentrations.

During the winter, Pacific walrus inhabit the sea ice fringe in the northern Bering Sea running from Bristol Bay to the southern border of the Chukotka Peninsula (Figure 4-1). Winter breeding concentrations form in polynyas south of Nunivak Island, Saint Lawrence Island, and Anadyr Gulf (Figure 4-1). Walrus move with the ice edge as it recedes north in the spring, spending the summer in areas of high concentrations of benthic food resources such as Hanna Shoal in the northeastern Chukchi Sea. In some years, walrus could be found in the shelf waters of the Beaufort Sea as far east as 153°W (Clarke et al. 2013). Not all groups migrate north. A portion of the male population will remain in Bristol Bay, the Bering Strait, and along the southern edge of the Chukotka Peninsula throughout the summer they rest at terrestrial haulout sites (Figure 4-1). As many as 14,000 summering males have been counted hauled out at Round Island (Bristol Bay) alone, while 1,000 to 2,000 walrus have been observed summering at King Island (Bering Strait), although King Island haulout use is more typical in the fall (Fay and Kelly 1980). During warm years, when the sea ice recedes to the Arctic Basin where waters are too deep for walrus to forage, walrus will move to terrestrial haulout sites on both sides of the Chukchi Sea. In 2014 and 2015, upwards of 40,000 walrus hauled out onto a beach near Point Lay, and with smaller numbers (~6,000) using the beach in 2016. Although hauling out on terrestrial beaches in Chukchi Sea is not a new phenomenon, only recently has it become consistent. Large numbers of walrus have been hauling out there every year since 2007 with the exception of two years (2008 and 2012). During these years, enough remnant ice remained over shelf waters to keep walrus offshore. A continuing warming trend, and the implications it has on sea ice and walrus summer ecology, was the driving force behind the petition to list the species under ESA.



Figure 4-1. Pacific walrus range map.

Walrus encounters during the project will depend on sea ice conditions during summer 2017. The current cable routes occur over 700 km (435 mi) north of Round Island, over 100 km (62 mi) offshore of the terrestrial haulouts near Point Lay, and 28 km (17 mi) inshore of Hanna Shoal (Figure 4-2). Thus, any O&M activity will avoid major walrus concentration areas regardless of sea ice. If the O&M operations occur between Point Lay and Wainwright during August, and ice conditions are light, walrus leaving Hanna Shoal for terrestrial haulout near Point Lay might be encountered. During geophysical surveys along the proposed routes during September and August 2015, 55 walrus were recorded by protected species observers (PSOs) over about 50 days of activity. Most of these animals were recorded offshore of Wainwright.

During August and September 2016, PSOs operating from the cable-lay vessels recorded eight groups of walrus totaling 183 animals, including three groups of 70, 50, and 50 hauled out on ice. The O&M activities will purposely avoid sea ice for safety reasons, and the remaining cable laying from Oliktok Point occurs outside walrus habitat. However, Quintillion may need to manage ice during transit to Section 3 to being pre-trenching activities. Hauled out walrus might be encountered during this transit.



Figure 4-2. Location of the Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area.

4.2. Polar Bear Two stocks of polar bears inhabit the Quintillion cable-lay project area: the Chukchi/Bering Sea population and the Southern Beaufort Sea population. The summer range of the former population extends as far eastward as the Colville River Delta and the western edge of the latter stock extends to Point Hope, thus creating an overlap in the stocks (Amstrup et al. 2004; Figure 4-3). The Chukchi/Bering Sea stock is the larger at about 2,000 animals (Lunn et al. 202), while the Southern Beaufort Sea stock has been estimated at 1,526 (Regehr et al. 2006). Both stocks are highly dependent on sea ice, and both were listed in 2008 as threatened under ESA due to the loss of sea ice from climate change (USFWS 2008). Some bears of the Chukchi/Bering Sea stock will move south with the ice to winter in the northern Bering Sea. Both stocks den in the winter, both on ice or coastal areas, when snow drifts are deep enough for denning (Amstrup et al. 2003) with the Southern Beaufort Sea stock denning mostly along the north coast of Alaska and the Chukchi/Bering Sea stock mostly in Russia (USFWS 2013, 2015). There is little denning activity along the coast of western Alaska.



Figure 4-3. Approximate ranges of the Chukchi/Bering Seas and Southern Beaufort Sea populations of polar bear.

Polar bears from both stocks feed primarily on ringed seals (Pusa hispida) and secondarily on bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). Adult seals are taken by stalking hauled out animals, or by waiting for seals to appear at breathing holes. Ringed seal pups are taken by breaking through the tops of snow lairs. Bears will also occasionally take walrus calves, and scavenge walrus and whale carcasses. They will also concentrate at Point Barrow, Cross Island, and Barter Island where they feed on the remains of harvested bowhead whales. The availability of sea ice to access prey is critical to the survival polar bears. If stranded on the beach during the summer, bears will eat very little other than what they can scavenge until the ice returns.

Because polar bears are so dependent on sea ice, they could be encountered during ice management activities with early summer transit to Section 3 to begin pre-trenching activities. It is also possible that polar bears might be observed at Oliktok Point proper during summer work given the remoteness of the location and the proximity of the barrier islands, but close encounters are unexpected.



5. TYPE OF INCIDENTAL TAKING AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED

The incidental taking authorization requested is for: 1) Level B noise harassment (exposure to underwater sound levels greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa [rms]) of walrus; 2) potential takes associated with walrus stampeding from ice floes; and 3) disturbance of polar bears during ice management activities, all as a result of Quintillion’s proposed fiber optic cable project in the northern Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The noise source of primary concern is the operation of ship propellers and thrusters (cavitation) during sea plow pre-trenching, cable bury, and dynamic positioning, and tug anchor handling, barge maneuvering, winching, and vibro plow trenching associated with barge-based cable laying. The actual Level B acoustical take will depend upon the number of Pacific walruses occurring within the 160-dB Zone of Influence (ZOI) at the time of cable-lay activity. Level A harassment or injury is not of concern as cavitation noise is not known to significantly exceed levels that would elicit permanent threshold shift (PTS) in walrus.

6. HARASSMENT ESTIMATES FOR WALRUS AND POLAR BEAR

Walrus are subject to harassment from both marine acoustic impacts as well as visual presence harassment (i.e., proximity to hauled out walrus resulting in a behavioral response). Polar bears spend so little time under the water that marine acoustic impacts are not a concern. Therefore, only harassment via visual presence is evaluated for polar bears.

Exposure to continuous sound levels greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) can elicit behavioral changes in Pacific walrus that might be detrimental to health and long-term survival where it disrupts normal behavioral routines, and is the Level B criteria for acoustical harassment for this species under the MMPA. Exposure to sound levels greater than 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for pinnipeds can lead to acoustical injury including temporary loss in hearing sensitivity and permanent hearing damage. These values are the MMPA Level A criterion. However, as ship and barge noise measured during the 2016 operations (I&R 2016) did not exceed PTS thresholds, Level A acoustic concerns are not addressed further.

The estimate of the numbers of walruses that could be harassed (Level B) by exposure to vessel noise during cable-lay operations was determined by multiplying the maximum seasonal density by the total area in the north Bering and Chukchi seas (and the Beaufort Sea east to 153°W) that will be ensonified by greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). For purposes of this application it is conservatively assumed that regardless of the exact cable-lay activity occurring, noise-generating propellers will be continuously operated all the way to the shoreline.

Encountering walrus on ice floes is not a predictable event, especially given that the cable-lay fleet will be making all attempts to avoid sea ice during actual cable laying. No walrus are expected to be encountered during any actual cable-lay activity in the Beaufort Sea, or during O&M activity in the Chukchi or Bering seas. However, in order to get an early season start on pre-trenching activity along the Oliktok branch, Quintillion may need to manage ice, especially near Point Barrow, during transit to Oliktok. Both walrus and polar bears might be encountered during this transit potentially leading to a harassment event. Because the potential number of walrus and bears that might be harassed cannot be predicted, sighting data from 2016 is used to estimate the number of walrus and bears that might be visually harassed in 2017.



6.1. Estimating Numbers of Level B Harassments

6.1.1. Ensonified Area

It is not possible to know before testing for faults just how much retrieval and reburial of cable (O&M activity) will be necessary in 2017. Only the approximately 76 km (47 mi) of cable for the Oliktok branch that was not completed in 2016 will be installed for certain in 2017, and none of this route falls within walrus habitat (west of 153°W; Figure 6-1). The acoustical footprint (total ensonified area) within walrus habitat was determined by conservatively assuming that noise exceeding criterion would occur along 125 km (140 mi) of potential O&M work, and 50 km (31 mi) of transit requiring ice management. It is further assumed that 50 km (16 mi) will occur within the Beaufort Sea (west of 153°W), and the remaining 125 km (124 mi) in either the Bering or Chukchi seas.

As noted above (Section 1.2), the maximum ensonification radius to the 160-dB Level B harassment threshold for walrus was estimated at 29 m (95 ft) assuming a 1-m source SPL of 185.2 dB and a transmission loss of 17.36 Log (r) as determined during I&R’s (2016) sound source verification of the Ile de Brehat during plowing operations. Therefore, the total assumed ensonified area is 175 km of route multiplied by a swath that is 2 x 29 m wide, or about 10 km2 (3.9 mi2) in total area. This is a very small area relative to the range of walrus in Alaska.



Figure 6-1. Trunk and branching lines segment lengths. The 153°W longitude marks the eastern limit of Pacific walrus habitat use in Alaska.

6.1.2. Pacific Walrus Density

The seasonal distribution of walruses in the project area is directly associated with the distribution and extent of broken pack-ice (Fay et al. 1984, Garlich-Miller et al. 2011, Aerts et al. 2014). During years that sea-ice is prevalent all summer over the Chukchi Sea shelf, most walrus are expected to remain with the ice and feed at high food concentration areas like Hanna Shoal. During years that the pack ice edge moves north over the Arctic Basin where waters are too deep for walrus to forage, the walrus leave the ice and haul out on beaches (such as near Point Lay), where they remain until the pack ice returns. Relative to the Quintillion cable laying, few walrus are expected to be encountered during heavy ice years as most of them will remain with the pack ice moving north or northwest of the lines. The exception would be where isolated floes supporting walrus were to blow back southward during storm events. During light ice years, walrus moving from the pack ice to terrestrial haulouts might intercept cable-lay activity, and beach summering walrus might be encountered near Wainwright, or passing though the Bering Strait. In general, summer densities of walrus in the project area are unpredictable, and distributions clumpy.

The best available estimates come from Aerts et al. (2014), who conducted shipboard surveys for marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea from 2008 to 2013. Their highest recorded summer densities were in the low-



ice years of 2009 (0.040 walrus/km2) and 2013 (0.041 walrus/km2). During the heavy ice years of 2008 and 2012, densities were only 0.001 and 0.006 walrus/km2, respectively. Given the continuing trend for light summer ice conditions, it is conservatively assumed that 2017 will be similar to 2013. Therefore, the 2013 density estimate of 0.041 walrus/km2 is used in the following exposure calculations.

6.1.3. Walrus Level B Exposure Calculations and Take Request

The estimated potential harassment exposure of walrus by the Quintillion cable project was determined by multiplying the seasonal walrus density (0.041 walrus/km2) by the total area (10 km2) that would be ensonified by cavitation noise greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The result indicates that less than one walrus might be exposed, which makes sense given a walrus would have to swim to within 29 m (95 ft) of an active propeller to be acoustically exposed.

Because so little area will be ensonified (greater than 160 dB) in 2017, Quintillion is not requesting authorization to acoustically harass Pacific walrus. However, because walrus haul out on ice floes in remote environments where the primary human activity is hunting, they can be easily disturbed by the mere presence of vessels possibly leading to a behavioral reaction. For example a stampede off an ice floe has the potential to be construed as a harassment take. This could be the case during proposed early summer ice management operations near Point Barrow. Further, since walrus are highly gregarious, a single event could involve a large number of animals. During August and September 2016, PSOs aboard Quintillion vessels recorded eight groups comprising 183 total walrus hauled out on ice floes, with the largest a group of 70 animals. None of these observations involved a stampede, but they demonstrate the possibility of encountering large groups of walrus. As there is a possibility that Quintillion may have to use a tug to create a path through persistent ice around Point Barrow in order for the Ile de Batz to access the Oliktok branch route, there is the possibility of disturbing hauled out walrus. Thus, Quintillion is requesting authorization for a harassment take of 250 walrus.

6.1.4. Polar Bear Take Request

Given that O&M activity would occur during the summer and fall open water period, and that the operations would purposely avoid sea ice for safety reasons, encounters with polar bears during repair operations is not expected. Polar bears are more likely to be observed during the remaining cable-lay activities along the Oliktok branch route. Oliktok Point itself is relatively remote and includes only a few camp facilities, and the branch route passes between Thetis Island and Spy Island, both part of a 65 km (40 mi) barrier island chain running from the Colville River Delta to Prudhoe Bay that is often inhabited by summer-wandering polar bears. Polar bears were observed at these locations in 2016, although they were usually observed at distance and no harassment takes occurred. Polar bears are more likely to be encountered during possible ice management operations around Point Barrow. While ice management activities do not propose actually breaking large ice floes, but rather just creating travel path by maneuvering floes, it is possible that this limited ice management could nevertheless disturb polar bears inhabiting these floes. Thus, to account for these possibilities, an authorization for a harassment take of up to 20 polar bears, 10 from each stock, is requested. Point Barrow demarks the line between the two stocks.



6.1.5. Take Request as a Percentage of Stock

The requested harassment take for both Pacific walrus and polar bears are small relative to the most recent stock abundance estimates. For both species, the requested take is well less than 1% of the stock (Table 6-1).

Table 6-1. Level B take request as a percentage of the stock.

Species Abundance Requested Take Percent Stock Pacific Walrus 129,000 250 0.19% Polar Bear (Chukchi/Bering Stock) 2,000 10 0.50% Polar Bear (Beaufort Stock) 1,526 10 0.66%

Abundance sources: Lunn et al. (2002), Regehr et al. (2006), Speckman et al. (2011)

7. ANTICIPATED IMPACT OF THE ACTIVITY ON THE SPECIES OR STOCK

The primary concern of the Quintillion cable project relative to Pacific walrus is the potential disturbance of hauled out animals leading to a stampede or other flight behavior. The primary concern for polar bears is the potential disturbance of polar bears on ice floes.

Because walrus spend the vast majority of their time with their head out of the water, there is little opportunity for long-term exposure by continuous underwater sound sources. As a result, the USFWS recently changed the acoustic threshold for walrus Level B harassment from 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Given that the maximum 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth is only about 29 m (95 ft), and the vessels are moving (necessitating a marine mammal to swim under the vessel and maintain its position in concert with the moving vessel to be exposed for any significant length of time) there are no threshold shift, masking, or chronic acoustical disturbance concerns.

The presence of vessels can disrupt normal behaviors of marine mammals, including walrus and polar bears, either through visual or acoustical harassment. Disturbed animals may quit feeding, move away from feeding areas, display overt reactions, or display other behaviors that expend undue energy potentially culminating in lowered fitness. Continued disturbance can lead to chronic stress exposure, further leading to stress-related responses such as immune system suppression, reproductive failure, slowed growth, and an overall decline in fitness. Chronic stress is exposure to stressors that last for days or longer, and does not apply to a single passing ship. However, disturbance noise from a passing ship (acute stress) can add to the overall stress budget (known as the allostatic load; Romero et al. 2009) of an individual marine mammal contributing to general distress and deleterious effects. Quintillion’s planned cable laying will have some limited, additive effect to the overall anthropogenic noise budget.

Most information on the reaction of pinnipeds to boats relates to disturbance of hauled out animals. There is little information on the reaction of these pinnipeds while they are in the water, other than some anecdotal information that some individuals are often attracted to boats (Richardson et al. 1995). For walrus, disturbance of hauled out animals can be a critical issue. Whether hauled out on land or ice, walrus will



often overtly react to human presence by stampeding back into the safety of water leading to the trampling death of young animals. For example, several thousand walrus hauled out on the beaches of Chukotka Peninsula in 2007 may have died from trampling trauma alone, and several trampled animals were found on Alaska beaches in 2009 (Fischbach et al. 2009, Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). Trampling mortality at haulout sites near Point Lay has been modest, likely due in part by local villagers managing potential human disturbance (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). The only terrestrial walrus haulout sites identified in Figure 4-1 that the project would come close to are those that are more than 25 km (16 mi) north and south of Wainwright. Given the Wainwright branching line goes directly to the village, haulout disturbance from potential O&M activity is remote.

Polar bears will also overtly react to construction activities causing short-term stress. In addition, bears can be attracted to activities, requiring harassment measures to distract them away from humans, leading to additional stress (although hazing is not part of this application). During periods of limited ice, when the ability to capture prey is also limited, the harassment stress can lead to a significant decline in fitness.

The O&M activities intend to avoid sea-ice haulout sites by operating in the summer and early fall, well away from the pack ice edge. However, in order to initially access the Oliktok branch route in 2017, Quintillion may need to use a tug to will clear a path through persistent ice off Point Barrow in order for the Ile de Batz to access to the open water of the Beaufort Sea. This activity increases the chance of disturbing both walrus and polar bears.

8. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON SUBSISTENCE USES

The remaining cable-lay activities will occur within the marine subsistence areas used by the villages of Barrow and Nuiqsut, the latter of which does not hunt walrus. Between 1989 and 2009, approximately 1,560 walruses were harvested annually in Alaska (Garlich-Miller and Burn 1999, USFWS 2010), with two-thirds of the harvest by the Saint Lawrence Island (Bering Sea) villages of Gambell and Savoonga alone. (Saint Lawrence Island is 135 km [84 mi] south of the Quintillion cable project.) Approximately 24 walrus were harvested annually by Barrow hunters during that period.

The villages within the potential O&M activity area harvested an average of 316 walrus between 1989 and 2009, with 40% (127; Table 8-1) harvested by the small village of Diomede (population of ~200) alone. Diomede is on Little Diomede Island in the center of the Bering Strait.

Table 8-1. Average annual harvest (1989-2009) of walrus by subsistence villages occurring within the Quintillion project area (source: USFWS 2010).

Village Annual Harvest

Nome 21

Wales 14

Diomede 127

Kotzebue 4



Kivalina 7

Point Hope 7

Point Lay 5

Wainwright 44

Barrow 24

Nuiqsut 0

Relative to the village population size (556), walrus are an important staple for Wainwright inhabitants as well (although the village also harvests beluga and bowhead whales). Approximately 44 walrus are taken annually (Table 8-1). About 20 walrus were annually harvested by hunters from each Nome and Barrow between 1989 and 2009, but given both villages have populations of approximately 4,000, walrus are not as important in the subsistence diet as other resources. The remaining villages (Kotzebue, Kivalina, Point Hope, and Point Lay) took less than 10 walrus annually between 1989 and 2009, suggesting walrus hunting is more opportunistic than focused.

Taking into account the relative importance of walrus (and polar bears) to a particular village, the only 2017 activity of concern is the possibility of using an ice management tug to clear a path through light sea ice around Point Barrow to provide early access to Oliktok Point. Ice management activities could disrupt local subsistent hunts. However, as in 2016, Quintillion will work closely with the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the Alaska Nanuuq Commission (through the Plan of Cooperation addressed in Section 12 and provided in Appendix B) to minimize any effects cable-lay activities might have on subsistence harvest, including scheduling passage around Point Barrow when active hunting is not occurring.

9. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON HABITAT

9.1. Pacific Walrus Habitat and Prey Resources The 2017 Quintillion cable-lay effort will occur on the shelf regions of the Beaufort Sea. This section of the network is primarily mud, sandy mud, and gravelly mud, although the 2016 program was encountering clayey sand off Oliktok. There are no areas dominated by rock. The physical habitat of the Bering and Chukchi sea areas where O&M activity might occur is characterized as flat, with a bottom substrate of mud, sand, or gravel, or a combination of the three (Naidu 1988, Feder et al. 1989, Smith 2010). The Chukchi Sea portion of the network will also cross gravelly mud, gravelly muddy sand, and mud substrates. Rocky areas occur in Bering Strait.

These habitats support benthic and epibenthic fauna. Feder et al. (1989) identified four benthic fauna assemblages, based on grab sampling, in the Chukchi Sea that are a reflection of the relative presence and mix of gravel, sand, and mud. Areas of muddy sandy gravel were dominated in abundance by the tube-dwelling amphipod Byblis gaimardi and the juvenile barnacle Balanus crenatus. The muddy areas were dominated by the polychaete Maldane glebifex and the clams Macoma spp. and Nucula bellotti. The sandy



area assemblage was dominated by barnacles (B. crenatus) and tube-dwelling amphipods including Ampelisca macrocephala. Finally, the sandy gravel areas included sand dollars (Echinarachnius parma) and the cockle Cyclocardia rjabininae. Feder et al. (1989) also conducted trawl surveys in the Chukchi Sea to characterize communities the epifaunal communities and benthic fauna near the surface. Invertebrates they found to dominate abundance were brittle stars (Ophiura sarsi), Tanner crab (Chionoecetes opilio), and crangonid shrimp.

Bivalve clams of the genera Macoma, Serripes, and Mya appear to be the most important prey based on both stomach contents and prey availability at walrus concentration areas, although they feed on a wide variety of prey, including non-bivalve invertebrates mentioned in the paragraph above (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009). Feder et al. (1989) found walrus summer and fall feeding areas in the Chukchi Sea to be dominated by muddy substrates supporting high biomasses of Macoma calcarea. Hanna Shoal (Figure 4-2) is the most important foraging area for walrus (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991; MacCracken 2012; Jay et al. 2012), as well as bearded and ringed seals (USFWS 2013). Because of the unique bathymetric and current patterns, nutrients from the Bering Sea are deposited on the ocean floor at Hanna Shoal where they feed a rich benthic ecosystem. The USFWS delineated the area based on walrus use patterns, and designated 24,600 km2 (9,500 mi2) as the Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area (HSWUA; Figure 4-2).

9.2. Polar Bear Habitat and Prey Resources Sea ice is the most vital component of polar bear habitat, while the availability of snow drifts is important as winter denning habitat (USFWS 2013). Sea ice provides bears access to ringed and bearded seal prey. Polar bears are not evenly distributed across the ice, but are generally found near the pack ice edge, polynyas, and leads over relatively shallow water (USFWS 2013), where seals are also most often found.

9.3. Potential Project Impacts Project activities that could potentially impact walrus habitats include trenching associated with burying cable in the seafloor. Cable burial operations involve the use of plows or jets to cut trenches in the sea floor 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. Jetting may occasionally be necessary to obtain the depth necessary for cable installation. 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.

Specific impacts to walrus habitat and prey potentially 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 width of 2 to 3 m (7 to10 ft), and the displaced wedge or berm is expected to naturally backfill into the trench. Jetting results in more suspension of sediments, which may take days to settle during which currents may transport it well away (up to several kilometers) from source. Suspended sand particles generally settle within about 20 m (66 ft).

BERR (2008) 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. (Dredging rated the highest [6] relative to sediment disturbance.)

All cable-lay activity within walrus habitat has already occurred, and any future plowing would be to rebury repaired cable during O&M activities. Further, none of the activity will occur in the HSWUA. Overall, cable-lay effects to benthic resources is negligible.

The O&M activity will not affect polar bear habitat. Alaska polar bears are largely dependent on sea ice, a habitat that will be strictly avoided by the repair activities for safety purposes. However, ice management activity that could potentially occur near Point Barrow to allow early passage to Oliktok Point will involve a brief passage through polar bear habitat, but while some noise disturbance to bears might occur, ice management will not involve breaking of large floes most important for bear travel and hunting.

10. ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF HABITAT IMPACTS ON MARINE MAMMALS

Based on the conclusions of Section 9 above, modification of Pacific walrus habitat is expected to be modest and temporary, and limited to trenching activities associated with cable laying. Any impacts to prey resources is considered minor or negligible, and no long-term effects would occur. Because of the seasonal timing of the proposed cable-lay activities, there are no anticipated impacts to polar bear foraging (sea ice) or denning (winter) habitat. Some ice may be maneuvered during possible ice management activity around Point Barrow, but none of this would involve habitat loss.

11. MITIGATION MEASURES

The primary means of minimizing potential impacts from cable laying to marine mammals is to design the routing to avoid marine mammal concentration areas or important prey habitat (BERR 2008), and stop activities in the presence of hauled out walrus. In 2016, most of the main trunk line was laid 30 to 150 km (19 to 93 mi) offshore, thereby avoiding any nearshore concentrations of Pacific walrus. None of the 2017 activity will occur near terrestrial walrus haulouts. Also, for safety reasons, the O&M operations must avoid sea ice as much as possible. Thus, in doing so, Quintillion is also avoiding ice habitat used by walrus and polar bears. Quintillion will communicate closely with the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the Alaska Nanuuq Commission to ensure effects to walrus and polar bears (the subsistence harvest of these species) are avoided. Reducing and mitigating potential acoustical impacts to local marine mammals during cable-lay activity is fully addressed in the 4MP attached as Appendix C.

12. PLAN OF COOPERATION

A Plan of Cooperation (POC) was prepared specifically to address the requirements of 50 CFR § 216.104 (a)(12), which requires a plan of cooperation to be submitted in support of a request for an IHA from the USFWS. The focus of the POC is to ensure that there are undue project impacts to local subsistence harvest of marine mammals. The POC is provided in Appendix B.



13. MONITORING AND REPORTING

Monitoring and reporting potential acoustical impacts to local marine mammals are fully addressed in the 4MP provided as Appendix C.

14. SUGGESTED MEANS OF COORDINATION

Potential impacts of ship cavitation and other continuous noise activities on marine mammals have been studied, with the results used to establish the noise criteria for evaluating take and to support mitigation measures. However, all observations of marine mammals, including any observed reactions to the cable-lay operations will be recorded and reported in a 90-day report to the both the USFWS Office of Marine Mammal Management and the NMFS Office of Protected Species. Observation data will also be provided as requested to the NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, the North Slope Borough Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Eskimo Walrus Commission, and the Alaska Nanuuq Commission.

15. REFERENCES

Aerts, L.A.M., W. Hetrick, S. Sitkiewicz, C. Schudel, D. Snyder, and R. Gumtow. 2014. Marine mammal distribution and abundance in the northeastern Chukchi Sea during summer and early fall, 2008- 2013. Final Report prepared by LAMA Ecological for ConocoPhillips Company., Shell Exploration and Production Company and Statoil USA E&P, Inc.

Amstrup, S.C. 2003. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus). Pages 587–610 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, editors. Wild Mammals of North America—Biology, Management, and Conservation. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Amstrup, S.C., T.L. McDonald, and G. Durner. 2004. Using satellite radiotelemetry data to delineate and manage wildlife populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32(3):661-679.

BERR. 2008. Review of cabling techniques and environmental effects applicable to the offshore wind farm industry. Technical Report. 159 pp,

Bluhm, B.A. and R. Gradinger. 2008. Regional variability in food availability for arctic marine mammals. Ecological Applications 18:S77-S96.



Brueggeman, J.J., C.I. Malme, R.A. Grotefendt, D.P. Volsen, J.J. Burns, D.G. Chapman, D.K. Ljungblad and G.A. Green. 1990. Shell Western E&P Inc. 1989 walrus monitoring program: the Klondike, Burger, and Popcorn prospects in the Chukchi Sea: final report. EBASCO Environmental, Bellevue, WA, 139 pp.

Brueggeman, J.J., D.P. Volsen, R.A. Grotefendt, G.A. Green, J.J. Burns, and D.K. Ljungblad. 1991. Final report. Shell western E&P Inc. 1990 walrus monitoring program. Ebasco Environmental, Bellevue, WA, 68 pp.

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 2008. Petition to list the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmaurs divergens) as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. 99pp.

Clarke, J.T., C.L. Christman, A.A. Brower, and M.C. Ferguson. 2013. Distribution and relative abundance of marine mammals in the northeastern Chukchi and western Beaufort seas, 2012. Annual Report, OCS Study BOEM 2013-00117. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, F/AKC3, Seattle, WA 98115-6349.

Costa, D. P., & Gales, N. J. 2003. Energetics of a benthic diver: Seasonal foraging ecology of the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea. Ecological Monographs, 73(1), 27-43

Deepwater Wind. 2013. Block Island Wind Farm and Block Island Transmission System Underwater Acoustic Report, Revision 1.

Fay, F.H. 1982. Ecology and biology of the Pacific walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens illiger. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North American Fauna, Washington, D. C., 279 pp.

Fay, F.H. and B.P. Kelly. 1980. Mass natural mortality of walruses (Odobenus rosmarus) at St. Lawrence Island, Bering Sea, autumn 1978. Arctic 33:226-245.

Fay, F.H., B.P. Kelly, P.H. Gehnrich, J.L. Sease and A.A. Hoover. 1984. Modern populations, migrations, demography, trophics, and historical status of the Pacific walrus, final report. Pages 231-376 in outer continental shelf environmental assessment program, Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK.

Feder, H. M., Naidu, A.S., Hameedi, J.W., Jewett, S.C., and Johnson, W.R. 1989. The Chukchi Sea continental shelf: benthos-environmental interactions: U.S. Dep. Comer., NOAA, OCSEAP, Final Rep. 68, p. 25-311.

Fischbach, A.S., D.H. Monson, and C.V. Jay. 2009. Enumeration of Pacific walrus carcasses on beaches of the Chukchi Sea in Alaska following a mortality event, September 2009. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1291, Reston, VA.

Garlich-Miller, J.L. and Burn, D.M. 1999. Estimating the harvest of Pacific walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens in Alaska. Fish. Bulletin 97(4): 1043-1046.

Garlich-Miller, J.L., J.G. MacCracken, J. Snyder, R. Meehan, M. J. Myers, J.M. Wilder, E. Lance, and A. Matz. 2011. Status review of the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, January 2011, Anchorage, AK, 155 pp.



Harrington, C.R. 2008. The evolution of arctic marine mammals. Ecological Applications 18:23-40.

Hartin, K.G., C.M. Reiser, D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, D.M.S. Dickson, J. Beland, and M. Bourdon. 2011. Chukchi Sea vessel-based monitoring program. (Chapter 3) In: Funk, D.W., C.M. Reiser, D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and W.R. Koski (eds.). 2011. Joint Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, 2006–2010. LGL Alaska Final Report P1213-1, Report from LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., LGL Ltd., Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., and JASCO Research, Ltd., for Shell Offshore, Inc. and Other Industry Contributors, and National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 592 p. plus Appendices.

Jay, C.V., Fischback, A.S., and A.A. Kochnev. 2012. Walrus areas of use in the Chukchi Sea during sparse ice cover. Marine Ecology Progress Series 468: 1-13.

Jay C.V., Grebmeier J.M., Fischbach A.S., McDonald T.L., Cooper L.W., Hornsby F. 2014. Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) Resource Selection in the Northern Bering Sea. PLoS ONE 9(4): e93035. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093035

Kastelein, R. A., P. Mosterd, B. van Santen, and M. Hadedoorn. 2002. Underwater audiogram of a Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) measured with narrow-band frequency modulated signals. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 12:2173-2182.

Lindqvist, C., L. Bachmann, L.W. Andersen, E.W. Born, U. Arnason, K.M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, A.V. Abramov and Ø. Wiig. 2009. The Laptev Sea walrus Odobenus rosmarus laptevi: An enigma revisited. Zoologica Scripta 38:113-127.

Lunn, N.J., S. Schliebe, and E.W. Born, eds. 2002. Polar bears: Proceedings of the 13th working meeting of the IUCN/ SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. vii +153pp.

MacCracken, J.G. 2012. Pacific walrus and climate change: observations and predictions. Ecology and Evolution 2(8): 2072-2090.

Naidu, A.S. 1988. Marine surficial sediments, Section 1.4., in Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Coastal and Ocean Zones Strategic Assessment: Data Atlas: NOAA/SAB, Dept. Commerce, Rockville, Maryland.

Nedwell, J.R, Langworthy, J. and Howell, D. 2003. Assessment of sub-sea acoustic noise and vibration from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife; initial measurements of underwater noise during construction of offshore wind farms, and comparison with background noise. Subacoustech Report ref: 544R0423, published by COWRIE.

Regehr, E.V., S.C. Amstrup and I. Stirling. 2006. Polar bear population status in the southern Beaufort Sea. Report Series 2006–1337, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576 pp.

Romero, L.M., M.J. Dickens, and N.E. Cyr. 2009. The reactive scope model – a new model integrating homeostasis, allostasis and stress. Horm. Behav. 55:375–389.



Samsung 2009. Underwater noise measurements for HN1688 145,000 m³ LNG SRV. Report by Samsung Ship Model Basin, Daejeon, Korea for Neptune LNG Project, Boston, MA. 29 p.

Sheffield, G. and J.M. Grebmeier. 2009. Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens): Differential prey digestion and diet. Marine Mammal Science 25:761-777.

Smith, M.A. 2010. Arctic Marine Synthesis: Atlas of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Audubon Alaska and Oceana: Anchorage; Habitat Management Guide, Alaska Department of Fish & Game.

Speckman, S.G., V.I. Chernook, D.M. Burn, M.S. Udevitz, A.A. Kochnev, C.V. Jay, A. Lisovsky, A.S. Fischbach, and R.B. Benter. 2011. Results and evaluation of a survey to estimated Pacific walrus population size, 2006. Marine Mammal Science 27:514-553.

Stirling, I., McDonald, T.L., Richardson, E.S., Regehr, E.V., and Amstrup, S.C. 2011. Polar bear population status in the Northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971–2006. Ecol. Appl. 21:859–876.

Tetra Tech. 2013. Block Island Transmission System: Scarborough Beach Underwater Acoustic Assessment. 8 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Marine mammals; incidental take during specified activities; final rule. Federal Register 73:33212-33255.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2010. Stock Assessment Report: Pacific walrus http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/reports.htm

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12 Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific Walrus as Endangered or Threatened: Proposed Rule. Federal Register 76:7634-7679.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; special rule for the polar bear under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act: Federal Register 78:11766-11788

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). 2014. The Endangered species act and Alaska native hunting. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Region 7 website – accessed on 10/15/15. http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/walrus/pdf/factsheet_esa.pdf)

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). 2015. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Conservation Management Plan, Draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Region 7, Anchorage, Alaska. 59 pp.

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/reports.htm

http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/walrus/pdf/factsheet_esa.pdf

APPENDIX A

Illingworth & Rodkin Sound Source Verification Report

QUINTILLION SUBSEA OPERATIONS FIBER OPTIC CABLE-LAYING PROJECT

SOUND SOURCE VERIFICATION

Nome, Alaska

October 21, 2016

♦ ♦ ♦

Prepared for:

Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.

Anchorage, Alaska

Prepared by:

Keith Pommerenck and James Reyff

1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120

Petaluma, CA 94954

Job No. : 16-120

1

INTRODUCTION

Quintillion Subsea Operations (QSO) conducted a fiber optic cable-laying project in the marine

waters of Alaska in during the 2016 open-water season. The operations included subsea cable-

laying activity both from ships operating in offshore waters and barges operating nearshore. As a

stipulation under two (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs), QSO was requested to collect underwater sound

data from dominant operational activities with the potential to acoustically harass marine

mammals. The sound source verification (SSV) specifically measured underwater sound from

trenching and winching operations by the cable-laying barge CB Networker, and thruster and

propeller noise generated by the cable-laying ship Ile de Brehat. The SSV for both operations

was conducted near Nome at the beginning of the season. Originally thruster noise from the

attending tugs during anchor-pulling was to be tested; however, when these operations were

being completed the seas were too rough and conditions were unsafe to make any measurements.

For the Ile de Brehat, measurements were made of the cavitation of main propellers and thrusters

during cable-laying while pulling the plough. An attempt was made to identify any noise

emanating from transponders or transducers, but the primary noise source, the cavitation of the

main propellers, overshadowed all other sources including the thrusters.

The SSV measurements conducted during the ship and barge operations are summarized in this

report.

TERMINOLOGY

Sound pressure level (SPL) is the instantaneous absolute positive or negative pressure and is

presented in this report as a decibel relative to 1 micropascal (dB re 1 µPa). The average root-

mean-square (RMS) sound pressure level is used to describe measured sounds from this activity.

The RMS sound pressure level is presented in dB re 1 µPa and is averaged over a defined time

period. Sounds were captured over the frequency range of 6.3 to 20,000 Hz. The average sound

level during the measurement period is also considered to be the equivalent sound pressure level

(Leq). Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is proportionally equivalent to the time integral of the

pressure squared and is also described in this report in terms of dB re 1 µPa2 sec over the

duration of a sound event. The various technical terms used in this report are further defined in

the Glossary of Technical Terms in Appendix A.

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, NMFS has defined levels of harassment for marine

mammals. Level A harassment is defined as “Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which

has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.” Level B

harassment is defined as “Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 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.” During the permitting process, NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine

mammals to high level sounds was that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to impulsive sounds of

2

180 and 190 dB RMS or greater, respectively, are considered to have been taken by Level A (i.e.,

injurious) harassment. Behavioral harassment (Level B) is considered to have occurred when

marine mammals are exposed to continuous underwater sounds of greater than 120 dB RMS.

The application of the 120 dB RMS threshold can sometimes be problematic because this

threshold level can be either at or below the ambient noise level of certain locations. For

continuous sounds, NMFS Northwest Region has provided guidance for reporting RMS sound

pressure levels. RMS levels based on a time-constant of 10 seconds averaged across the event.

NMFS Northwest Region has also defined the estimated auditory bandwidth for marine

mammals; however, this report does not consider any adjustments to RMS levels to account for

frequency range. Acoustic thresholds addressed in this report are described in Table 1.

Table 1 - Underwater Acoustic Criteria for Marine Mammals

Species

Underwater Noise Thresholds

(dB re 1µPa)

Anthropogenic

Disturbance

Threshold

Injury

Threshold

Frequency Range

Kilohertz (kHz)

Cetaceans 120 dB RMS 180 dB RMS

7 Hz to 20 kHz (Low)

150 Hz to 20 kHz (Mid)

200 Hz to 20 kHz (High)

Pinnipeds 120 dB RMS 190 dB RMS 75 Hz to 20 kHz

METHODS AND EQUIPMENT

All measurements were made from the Golovin Bay, a 9-meter (m) aluminum vessel (Figure 1),

drifting at different positions near the project vessels. Measurements were conducted while

drifting to minimize noise contamination

caused by strumming from the

hydrophone lines and flow noise. If a

hydrophone fixed in position the passing

current will tend to vibrate or strum the

anchor line; drifting minimizes this

effect. The hydrophones were attached to

a weighted line that was attached to a

mooring ball placed about 10 m from the

vessel. The water depth was typically 6

to 18 m at the location of hydrophone

deployment.

Live spot measurements were made live using RESON Model TC-4033 hydrophones. The

hydrophone signal was fed through an in-line PCB Model 422E13 charge converter and into a

PCB Model 480M122 Power Supply. The output was split into a Larson Davis Model 831

Precision Sound Level Meter (LDL 831) and a Roland R-05 solid-state digital data recorder

Figure 1 - The Golovin Bay was the platform used to make

SSV measurements while drifting near project operations

3

(SSR). The LDL 831 system provided live displays of the RMS values. The observer recorded

the RMS sound pressure level, exact time, and distance to the vessel from the noise source.

Measurements were also conducted using two autonomous

hydrophone systems, each system consisted of a TC4013 hydrophone

with PCB in-line charge amplifier (Model 422E13), PCB Multi Gain

Signal Conditioner (Model 480M122), and a Roland Model R-05

Solid State Recorder (Figure 2).

Each autonomous unit was set with an anchored weight at a fixed

location with a large float on the surface for ease in retrieval.

Live measurements and sound recordings were analyzed using the

LDL 831. During post-processing, the data collected using the LDL

831 was subsequently exported to Microsoft Excel format for further

data analysis and examination. Some measurements were affected by

background wave and current noise from the relatively rough sea

conditions, which at times exceeded 150 dB RMS. Acoustic data

affected by background noise level were discarded.

MEASUREMENT RESULTS

Ile de Brehat Measurements

The Ile de Brehat (Figure 3) ploughing operations produced a generally continuous sound. The

noise from the main propellers cavitation made continuous sounds that were louder than all the

other vessel-generated sounds. These sounds were present throughout the measurements.

July 24, 2016 – Ile de Brehat Measurements

Due to relatively rough seas (from high winds), the deployment of the two autonomous recording

systems was not possible. The sea conditions were too rough for a safe deployment and retrieval

of the units. The only measurements associated with the Ile de Brehat were spot measurements

and recordings made while the monitoring vessel was drifting with the wind and tide.

Nevertheless, clear acoustic signals from the ship activity were obtained. Simultaneous GPS

positions were recorded and matched with those positions provided by the ship to compute the

range from the sound source. During these measurements, the ship was pulling the cable-lay

plough operating at about a high 80% power. The measurements ranged from about 200 to

approximately 4,900 m.

A series of ten spot-drift measurements were conducted at different distances and locations (see

Table 2 and Figure 4 for the locations of the measurements). Sounds from the Ile de Brehat

operations could be heard clearly at each measurement position. These sounds appeared to be

Figure 2 - Autonomous

System

4

emanating from the cavitation of the ships propellers and were constant with little variation over

time. Average levels measured at various positions are plotted by distance in Figure 5. The plot

also shows the computed transmission loss regression calculation. Figure 6 shows the one-third

octave band frequency at different distances.

Figure 3 - The Ile de Brehat cable-laying ship pulling the plough

Table 2 - Measurement locations for the Ile de Brehat

Note: Leq is referenced to the time period defined by the start and stop times of the measurement.

Start Stop

1 6:37:56 6:39:00 200 145 64° 27.932'N 165° 19.519'W

2 6:40:00 6:42:09 265 142 64° 27.929'N 165° 19.610'W

3 6:50:39 6:54:53 900 135 64° 27.994'N 165° 20.380'W

4 7:12:12 7:16:26 2900 126 64° 28.321'N 165° 22.635'W

5 16:34:23 16:38:37 1850 128 64° 26.837'N 165° 23.832'W

6 15:11:54 15:16:07 3000 123 64° 27.517'N 165° 24.863'W

7 15:56:39 16:00:52 4,900 121 64° 27.416'N 165° 26.999'W

8 13:34:23 16:38:37 2000 128 64° 27.223'N 165° 23.092'W

9 17:41:07 17:45:21 1000 135 64° 26.678'N 165° 22.831'W

10 15:38 16:13 2000 127 64° 27.249'N 165° 23.956'W

Measurement Location

Average

Leq Level

TimeMeasurement

Location

Distance

(m)Latitude Longitude

5

Figure 4 – Measurement locations and Ile de Brehat path

Measurement

Locations

Ile de Brehat Path

from 06:00 to 18:00

6

Figure 5 - Regression curve for the Ile de Brehat measurement

Distance to Threshold Levels

Measurements were made at various distances from Ile de Brehat cable-laying ship while pulling

the plough. The spot measurements made at ten different were plotted with the corresponding

distances computed from the field notes and GPS readings, as shown in Figure 5. Measurements

indicate that the distance to the 190- and 180-dB RMS levels were less than 10 m and probably

did not occur near the source, see Table 3. The distance to the 120-dB level is computed at 5.35

kilometers using the source level (185.2 dB re 1 µPa) and transmission loss rate (17.36 Log R)

shown in Figure 5.

Table 3 - Distance to various acoustic thresholds with Ile de Brehat operating

Thresholds

(continuous sounds, RMS)

Distance, based on relationship between

measured level and range* 190 dB (Level A – pinnipeds) Less than 10 m based on broadband levels

180 dB (Level A – cetaceans) Less than 10 m

120 dB (Level B – pinnipeds and cetaceans) 5,350 m (5.35 km) *Based on broadband levels (20 – 20,000 Hz) in dB, re 1 µPa

7

Figure 6 - One-third octave band spectra measured for spot measurements from 200 m to 4,900 m from the

Ile de Brehat while ploughing

Calculated Distance Using New Guidance for PTS and TTS Onset

Recently, NMFS released new guidance for assessing acoustic impacts to marine mammals1.

This guidance includes new thresholds for the onset of permanent and temporary threshold shifts

(PTS and TTS) in marine mammal hearing. The thresholds are based on cumulative SEL levels

that an animal would experience and include Weighting Factor Adjustments (WFA) that account

for the sensitivity of different animals to varying frequencies of sound. WFA’s are assigned to

different Hearing Groups. NMFS has developed a User Spreadsheet that is meant to service as a

tool to compute the distance to the sound thresholds for the various Hearing Groups2.

The NMFS Spreadsheet was used to predict acoustic impacts using the computed sound-source

level and transmission loss for the various Hearing Groups. The “MOBILE SOURCE: Non-

Impulsive, Continuous (SAFE DISTANCE METHODOLOGY) tab was used along with the

default Weighting Factor Adjustment of 2 to compute the isopleth distances, as shown in Table

4. Note that the NMFS Spreadsheet uses a 20 Log R propagation rate and the measurements

indicate a 17.36 Log R rate. This would result in slightly greater isopleth distances; however,

there probably was no area where thresholds were exceeded given the size of the source (i.e., a

ship over 100 m in length).

1 NMFS. 2016. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): Technical Guidance For Assessing the Effects of

Anthropogenic Noise on Marine Mammal Hearing: Underwater Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent

and Temporary Threshold Shifts. 2 See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm, accessed 9/1/2016.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm

8

Table 4 - Resultant Isopleths to Cumulative SEL Threshold Computed by NMFS Spreadsheet

Hearing Group

Low-

Frequency

Cetaceans

Mid-

Frequency

Cetaceans

High-

Frequency

Cetaceans

Phocid

Pinnipeds

Otariid

Pinnipeds

SELcum Threshold

(dB re 1µPa2 sec)

199 198 173 201 219

PTS Isopleth to

threshold (m) 3.6 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0

CB Networker Measurements

Measurements for the CB Networker

barge (Figure 7) operations near

shore were conducted by placing two

autonomous recording units at

various distances from the barge

route. This provided two

simultaneous measurements as the

barge progressed along the intended

route of operation. Spot

measurements were also conducted

to verify these levels. Sounds from

the barge varied in time, so these

results are based on measurements of

louder operations. Simultaneous GPS

positions were recorded and matched

with those positions provided by the

barge to compute the range from the

sound source(s). Average sound

pressure levels measured at various positions from a range of about 110 m to 2,100 m are shown

in Table 5. Figure 8 shows the positions of the measurements. Spot measurements were

conducted out to 3,000 m, but the barge operation sounds, although audible, could not be

measured above the slapping sounds of water on the monitoring boat; however, overall sounds at

those positions were below 120 dB. Figure 9 shows the regression curve used to calculate the

attenuation rate based on the measurements. Figure 10 shows the one-third octave band

frequency at different distances.

Figure 7 - CB Networker

9

Table 5 - Measurement locations for the CB Networker barge

Note: Leq is referenced to the time period defined by the start and stop times of the measurement.

Start Stop

1 10:30:32 10:38:36 650 121 64° 28.184'N 165° 19.519'W

2 10:38:34 10:40:31 375 126 64° 28.485'N 165° 19.432'W

3 10:47:58 10:57:40 160 133 64° 28.759'N 165° 19.407'W

5 11:20:59 11:26:49 770 121 64° 28.918'N 165° 20.147'W

6 12:10:35 12:16:25 210 141 64° 28.248'N 165° 19.547'W

7 12:25:55 12:29:48 1100 126 64° 28.533'N 165° 20.587'W

8 12:39:18 12:49:01 2100 118 64° 28.679'N 165° 21.789'W

9 13:55:30 13:59:23 1200 125 64° 28.444'N 165° 20.755'W

10 9:30:51 9:35:59 920 124 64° 28.412'N 165° 20.748'W

8:05 8:18 110 142 64° 28.144'N 165° 19.455'W

8:23 8:29 123 140 64° 28.144'N 165° 19.455'W

8:30 8:47 138 141 64° 28.144'N 165° 19.455'W

8:56 8:59 150 139 64° 28.144'N 165° 19.455'W

9:15 9:22 255 137 64° 28.144'N 165° 19.455'W

9:24 9:37 265 133 64° 28.144'N 165° 19.455'W

9:40 9:56 280 136 64° 28.144'N 165° 19.455'W

8:05 8:18 625 128 64° 28.152'N 165° 19.974'W

8:23 8:29 624 125 64° 28.152'N 165° 19.974'W

8:30 8:47 626 127 64° 28.152'N 165° 19.974'W

8:56 8:59 630 125 64° 28.152'N 165° 19.974'W

9:15 9:22 665 121 64° 28.152'N 165° 19.974'W

9:40 9:56 675 120 64° 28.152'N 165° 19.974'W

Data from Autonomous Unit S-4

Data from Autonomous Unit U2

Longitude

Measurement Locations

Measurement

Location

Time Distance

(m)

Average

Leq LevelLatitude

10

Figure 8 - Measurement locations and CB Networker barge path

Measurement

Locations

Ile de Brehat Path

from 06:00 to 18:00

11

Figure 9 - Regression curve for the CB Networker barge measurements

Threshold Distance to CB Networker barge 120-dB Level

Measurements made at the different positions for the CB Networker barge system were plotted

by distance, as shown in Figure 8. The range in measurements is for distances of 110 m to 2,100

m. The measurements show that the propagation rate beyond 100 m is close to spherical

spreading (20 Log function of distance, equivalent to 6 dB per doubling of distance). These

measurements indicate that the distance to the 190- and 180-dB RMS levels were less than 10 m

and probably did not occur near the source. The distance to the 120-dB level threshold was

computed at 1,225 m (Table 6) based on a source of 181.77 dB re 1 µPa and a transmission loss

function of 19.83 Log R (Figure 9).

Table 6 - Distance to various acoustic thresholds with CB Networker trenching/cutting system operating

Thresholds

(continuous sounds)

Distance, based on relationship between

measured level and range* 190 dB (Level A – pinnipeds) Less than 10 m

180 dB B(Level A – cetaceans) Less than 10 m

120 dB (Level B – pinnipeds and cetaceans) 1,225 m (1.2 km) *Based on broadband levels (20 – 20,000 Hz) in dB, re 1 µPa

12

Figure 10 - One-third octave band spectra measured for spot measurements from 160 m) to 2,100 m from the

CB Networker barge while trenching

Calculated Distance Using New Guidance for PTS and TTS Onset

The NMFS Spreadsheet was used to predict acoustic impacts for the various Hearing Groups

using the computed sound-source level and default transmission loss. The “MOBILE SOURCE:

Non-Impulsive, Continuous (SAFE DISTANCE METHODOLOGY) tab was used along with

the default Weighting Factor Adjustment of 2 to compute the isopleth distances, as shown in

Table 7. Based on these results and considering the size of the sound source, there was no area

that exceeded the new NMFS thresholds for PTS and TTS impacts.

Table 7 - Resultant Isopleths to Cumulative SEL Threshold Computed by NMFS Spreadsheet

Hearing Group

Low-

Frequency

Cetaceans

Mid-

Frequency

Cetaceans

High-

Frequency

Cetaceans

Phocid

Pinnipeds

Otariid

Pinnipeds

SELcum Threshold

(dB re 1µPa2 sec)

199 198 173 201 219

PTS Isopleth to

threshold (m) 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0

13

Appendix A – Glossary of Technical Terms

Ambient sound – Normal background sound in the environment that has no distinguishable

sources.

Ambient noise level – The background sound pressure level at a given location, normally

specified as a reference level to study a new intrusive sound source.

Amplitude – The maximum deviation between the sound pressure and the ambient pressure.

Background noise level – Similar to ambient sound level with the exception that is a composite

of all sound measured during the construction period minus the pile removal.

Decibel (dB) – A customary scale most commonly used for reporting levels of sound. A

difference of 10 dB corresponds to a factor of 10 in sound power. A unit describing the

amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of

the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for water is 1 microPascal,

and for air it is 20 microPascals (the threshold of healthy human auditory sensitivity).

Frequency – The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below

atmospheric pressure, measured in cycles per second (Hertz [Hz]). Normal human hearing is

between 20 and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sounds are below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above

20,000 Hz.

Frequency spectrum – The distribution of frequencies that comprise a sound.

Hertz (Hz) – The units of frequency where 1 Hz equals 1 cycle per second.

Kilohertz (kHz) – 1,000 Hz

Leq – Equivalent Average Sound Pressure Level (or Energy-Averaged Sound Level). The decibel

level of a constant noise source that would have the same total acoustical energy over the same

time interval as the actual time-varying noise condition being measured or estimated. Leq values

must be associated with an explicit or implicit averaging time in order to have practical meaning.

The use of A-weighted, C-weighted, or Z-weighted (flat) decibel units sometimes is indicated by

LAeq, LCeq, or LZeq, respectively

LZeq – Z-weighted, Leq, sound pressure level

microPascal (μPa) – The Pascal (symbol Pa) is the SI unit of pressure. It is equivalent to one

Newton per square meter. There are 1,000,000 microPascals in one Pascal.

Root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level – Decibel measure of the square root of mean

square (RMS) pressure. For impulses, the average of the squared pressures over the time that

comprise that portion of the waveform containing 90 percent of the sound energy of the impulse.

Sound – Small disturbances in a fluid from ambient conditions through which energy is

transferred away from a source by progressive fluctuations of pressure (or sound waves).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level

http://www.acoustic-glossary.co.uk/frequency-weighting.htm

http://www.acoustic-glossary.co.uk/leq.htm

http://www.acoustic-glossary.co.uk/sound-pressure.htm

14

Sound exposure level (SEL) – The time integral of frequency-weighted squared instantaneous

sound pressures. Proportionally equivalent to the time integral of the pressure squared. Sound

energy associated with an acoustical event is characterized by the SEL. SEL is the constant

sound level in one second, which has the same amount of acoustic energy as the original time-

varying sound (i.e., the total energy of an event). SEL is calculated by summing the cumulative

pressure squared over the time of the event (1µPa2-sec).

Sound pressure level (SPL) – An expression of the sound pressure using the decibel (dB) scale

and the standard reference pressures of 1 μPa for water and 20 μPa for air when addressing

human concerns. Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in

microPascals (or microNewtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from

a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The SPL is expressed in dB as one or

20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressure exerted by the sound to a

reference sound pressure. SPL is the quantity directly measured by a sound level meter.

APPENDIX B

2017 Plan of Cooperation

1

2017 Plan of Cooperation Quintillion Subsea Cable-Lay Project Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska

November 2016

Prepared for:

Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC 201 East 56th Avenue, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99518

Prepared by:

Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. 6407 Brayton Drive, Suite 204 Anchorage, Alaska 99507 T: 907-344-3448 F: 907-344-3445

Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC 2017 Plan of Cooperation Subsea Cable Project Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska

Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. ii November 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................iii

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 2

3. STATEMENT OF NOTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 5

4. OPERATIONAL MITIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 6

5. MONITORING ................................................................................................................................................... 7

6. RESOLUTION AND MITIGATION ................................................................................................................ 7

7. OUTREACH ....................................................................................................................................................... 8

8. CONTACT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................ 9

List of Tables

Table 1: Meeting Representatives ................................................................................................................ 5

Table 2: Previous Meetings for 2016 POC .................................................................................................. 8 List of Figures

Figure 1: Route Map .................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: 2017 Cable-Lay Operations Area ................................................................................................. 4

Appendices A: Figure A-1 through Figure A-5 – Seasonal Subsistence Use Areas

Figure A-1: Seasonal Subsistence Use Areas, Late June – July Activities Figure A-2: Seasonal Subsistence Use Areas, August Activities Figure A-3: Seasonal Subsistence Use Areas, Early September Activities Figure A-4: Seasonal Subsistence Use Areas, Late Sepetmber Activities Figure A-5: Seasonal Subsistence Use Areas, October Activities

B: Example Daily Report


Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. iii November 2016

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission AIS Automatic Identification System IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization km kilometer(s) MEA Marine Exchange of Alaska mi mile(s) MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service O&M Operation and Maintenance POC Plan of Cooperation PSO Protected Species Observer Quintillion Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. 1 November 2016

1. INTRODUCTION

Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC (Quintillion) began installing a subsea fiber-optic cable network along the northern and western coasts of Alaska in 2016. The completed project will consist of 1,904 kilometers (km) (1,183 miles [mi]) of submerged fiber-optic cable that includes a main trunk line and six branch lines to onshore facilities in Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Barrow, and Oliktok Point (Figure 1).

The work permitted for 2016 was not completed and will carry over into the 2017 season. Quintillion also plans to conduct an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) program in 2017, whereby the cable system is tested for faults and repaired as needed. Repair operations would involve retrieving, repairing, then reburying cable.

The cable-lay operation produces underwater noise with the potential to harass marine mammals. Due to the potential harassment, Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs) are requested from both the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to allow the project to incidentally harass a limited number of marine mammals as allowed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This Plan of Cooperation (POC) provides details of the operational monitoring and mitigation measures Quintillion will adopt to minimize project impacts on marine mammals and subsistence activities. This POC was prepared specifically to address the following requirements under MMPA:

• 50 CFR § 216.104 (a)(12), which requires a POC to be submitted in support of a request for an IHA from NMFS

• 50 CFR § 18.114, which requires a record of community consultation to be submitted in support

of a request for an IHA from USFWS.

Quintillion produced a POC for the 2016 operations, which was presented to the cable-landing communities of Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, and Barrow during meetings in February 2016. As a courtesy, the POC was also discussed in a meeting with leadership from Nuiqsut in Anchorage. Additional meetings were held with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) and various village whaling associations. A daily report was provided from July through November 15 to the cable-landing communities to maintain an open dialog to minimize impacts. A summary of these meetings is provided in Section 7 of this document.

This POC sets out procedures for Quintillion and contract staff to work in cooperation with the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas coastal communities through mutual sharing of information (e.g., project schedule, activity location and timing), with the objective of preventing conflicts between the project and subsistence hunting. This POC also acts as a record of consultation as required by the USFWS and NMFS before issuance of an IHA to an applicant. The 2017 POC is presented as an extension of the monitoring and mitigation measures developed during the 2016 cooperation process. Additional meetings with affected communities will be conducted in 2017. If the outcomes of these meetings result in necessary modifications to the POC, a revised POC will be submitted to NMFS and USFWS prior to receipt of the IHAs.



2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

When complete, the Quintillion project will have installed 1,904 km (1,183 mi) of subsea fiber-optic cable that includes a main trunk line laid on or buried under the seafloor at a range of approximately 26 km to 100 km (16 mi to 62 mi) offshore; and six branching lines to onshore facilities in Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Barrow, and Oliktok Point (Figure 1).

The 2016 program successfully installed the vast majority of the cable, but did not complete the entire program. The remainder of the cable-lay work will carry over into 2017 and consists of cable-lay of 75 km (47 mi) for the Oliktok branching unit (Figure 2). This work is likely to be conducted from shallow-draft barges using jetted water (injector), or rock-cutting systems to trench the seafloor.

In addition to completion of the cable-lay work, the full cable system (Figure 1) will be tested for faults during the 2017 season. If faults are found, repairs would involve cable retrieval, repair, and reburial depending on where the fault occurs. The repair operations will be conducted from a cable-lay ship similar to those used during the 2016 operation.

Figure:1

ORNRC: QUIN085.mxd, 11/16/16, R02

ROUTE MAP

R U S S I A

B E R I N G S E A

C H U K C H I S E A

B E A U F O R T S E A

Cross Island

Nuiqsut

N o r t o n B a s i n

H o p e B a s i n

North SlopeBoroughSouth PadNorth Slope Borough South Pad

Oliktok Point

Barrow

Wainwright

Point Hope

Kotzebue

Nome

PCS: Alaska Albers, NAD83

0 30 60 90 12015 Miles

0 50 100 150 20025 Km

2017 PLAN OF COOPERATION

Scale:

Villages and Places of InterestFiber Optic Routes QUINTILLION SUBSEA OPERATIONS, LLC

Figure:2

ORNRC: QUIN087.mxd, 01/18/17, R06

OLIKTOK BRANCH UNIT


0 4 8 12 162 Miles

0 7 14 21 283.5 Km


Scale:

Branching Unit (Tie-in)Segment Ends (KP = Kilometer Point)Segment 1.1 - Installed 2016Segment 1.2 - Installed 2016

Oliktok Branch Route (Not Completed)Section 1: Inshore with small bargeSection 2: Inshore with large bargeSection 3: Offshore with vessel

QUINTILLION



3. STATEMENT OF NOTIFICATION

Quintillion will submit copies of this POC to each of the affected communities, tribal/subsistence organizations, and co-management groups listed in Table 1 and request meetings to discuss the 2017 operation. Meeting outcomes will be noted and the POC revised if necessary. The revised POC would be submitted to NMFS and USFWS in spring 2017.

TABLE 1: Meeting Representatives

Cable-Landing Communities

Tribal/Subsistence Organizations Co-Management Groups

Barrow

Wainwright

Point Hope

Kotzebue

Nome

AEWC

Barrow Whaling Captains Association

Wainwright Whaling Captains Association

Point Hope Whaling Captains Association

North Slope Borough

Maniilaq Association

Northwest Arctic Borough

Kawerak Inc.

Ice Seal Committee

Eskimo Walrus Commission

Alaska Nanuq Commission



4. OPERATIONAL MITIGATION

During the 2016 POC process, Quintillion worked with the cable-landing communities, tribal/subsistence organizations, and co-management groups to develop mutually agreed monitoring and mitigation measures. These same measures, where they remain appropriate, are included this 2017 POC and rely strongly on effective communication between operations and communities. These measures include:

• Cable-lay operations in the Beaufort Sea will begin in summer 2017, as early as ice conditions allow, which will maximize the completion of the Oliktok branch line before the fall bowhead hunt.

• O&M will occur where faults are found, but will be scheduled around subsistence activity, as needed. Figure A-1 through Figure A-5 (Appendix A) depict seasonal subsistence use areas that would be avoided when active.

• 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.

• 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. An example Daily Report from the 2016 operations is provided in Appendix B.

• 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. Local channels used in 2016 were:

o Barrow: Channel 72 (whalers

o Wainwright: Channel 9 (Local); Channel 12 (whalers)

o Point Hope: Channel 68

o Kotzebue: Channel 68

• Quintillion will provide project-related public service announcements on radio stations KBRW and KOTZ, on the Alaska Rural Communications Service television network, and in local newspapers.

Quintillion will reserve flexibility in meeting the above measures, as needed, to address environmental conditions and operational safety.



5. MONITORING

Quintillion proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the 2017 cable installation and O&M to satisfy the anticipated monitoring and reporting requirements of the NMFS and USFWS IHAs. Each cable-lay ship will have onboard a team of Protected Species Observers (PSOs) during the operating season. The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring and documenting marine mammals, and to communicate with subsistence hunters, if necessary.

Prior to mobilization, all PSOs will receive training on operations, monitoring protocols, data recording, and marine mammal identification. An Observer’s Handbook, adapted for the specifics of Quintillion’s operation, will be prepared and distributed to all PSOs as preparation for the training and as a reference document in the field. The Observer’s Handbook will be available to NMFS, USFWS, or other stakeholders. All PSOs will meet the requirements of NMFS and USFWS.

6. RESOLUTION AND MITIGATION

Subsistence-related disputes arising during or after Quintillion’s project will be resolved through direct communication between designated representatives and Quintillion. Proactive mitigation and reactive resolution may involve consultation and information sharing, village visits and meetings, and operating protocols designed to reduce interference with subsistence activities.



7. OUTREACH

Since 2013, Quintillion has been meeting annually with cable-landing village communities, tribal/subsistence organizations, and co-management groups in preparation for the fiber-optic cable laying project. Meetings dates and locations conducted as part of the 2016 POC process are listed in Table 2. The community meetings included a presentation of the cable installation process and approximate schedule of the 2016 activity. The meetings also provided a venue to address any concerns raised by the attendees. Similar community meetings will be scheduled for the 2017 project.

TABLE 2: PREVIOUS MEETINGS FOR 2016 POC Organization/Community Date Location

AEWC October 19, 2015 Anchorage

AEWC December 8, 2015 Anchorage

Barrow Whaling Captains Association Board January 19, 2016 Barrow

Barrow Whaling Captains Association Members January 25, 2016 Barrow

AWEC February 4, 2016 Barrow

Wainwright Community February 8, 2016 Wainwright

Wainwright Whaling Captains February 8, 2016 Wainwright

Point Hope Community February 9, 2016 Point Hope

Tikigaq Whaling Captains February 9, 2016 Point Hope

Kotzebue City Management February 10, 2016 Kotzebue

Kotzebue Community February 10, 2016 Kotzebue

Maniilaq Association February 10, 2016 Kotzebue

Northwest Arctic Borough February 10, 2016 Kotzebue

Kawerak Inc. February 11, 2016 Nome

Nome Community February 11, 2016 Nome

Kuukpik Corporation February 25, 2016 Anchorage

At the end of the 2017 cable-lay project, Quintillion will conduct final meetings at the cable-landing communities identified in this document to discuss and summarize project completion.



8. CONTACT INFORMATION

During operations, Quintillion will maintain an onshore presence and the contact information will be provided when available. Quintillion will set up a Toll Free 24-hour contact line to leave messages at any time. If there are any questions regarding the POC, Quintillion can be contacted at 1-800-673-4394 or [email protected], and Quintillion’s subsistence consultant Glenn Ruckhaus at 907-891-7265 or [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX A

Figure A-1 through Figure A-5 – Seasonal Subsistence Use Areas

Figure:A-1

ORNRC: QUIN080.mxd, 10/21/16, R00

LATE JUNE - JULY ACTIVITIES

R U S S I A

B E R I N G S E A

C H U K C H I S E A


Cross Island

Nuiqsut


Oliktok Point

Barrow

Wainwright

Point Hope

Kotzebue

Nome


0 30 60 90 12015 Miles

0 50 100 150 20025 Kilometers


Scale:

Villages and Places of InterestCable Route

Subsistence Use By Type (July)Beluga WhalesSealsFishingWalrus

Figure:A-2

ORNRC: QUIN081.mxd, 10/21/16, R00

AUGUST ACTIVITIES

R U S S I A

B E R I N G S E A

C H U K C H I S E A


Cross IslandNuiqsut


Oliktok Point

Barrow

Wainwright

Point Hope

Kotzebue

Nome


0 30 60 90 12015 Miles

0 50 100 150 20025 Kilometers


Scale:


Subsistence Use By Type (August)SealsWalrus

Figure:A-3

ORNRC: QUIN082.mxd, 10/21/16, R00

EARLY SEPTEMBER ACTIVITIES

R U S S I A

B E R I N G S E A

C H U K C H I S E A


Cross Island

Nuiqsut


Oliktok Point

Barrow

Wainwright

Point Hope

Kotzebue

Nome


0 30 60 90 12015 Miles

0 50 100 150 20025 Kilometers


Scale:


Subsistence Use By Type (Early September)Bowhead Whales

Figure:A-4

ORNRC: QUIN083.mxd, 10/21/16, R00

LATE SEPTEMBER ACTIVITIES

R U S S I A

B E R I N G S E A

C H U K C H I S E A


Cross Island

Nuiqsut

North SlopeBoroughSouth Pad North Slope Borough South Pad

Oliktok Point

Barrow

Wainwright

Point Hope

Kotzebue

Nome


0 30 60 90 12015 Miles

0 50 100 150 20025 Kilometers


Scale:


Subsistence Use By Type (Late September)Bowhead WhalesSeals

Figure:A-5

ORNRC: QUIN084.mxd, 10/21/16, R00

OCTOBER ACTIVITIES

R U S S I A

B E R I N G S E A

C H U K C H I S E A


Cross Island

Nuiqsut


Oliktok Point

Barrow

Wainwright

Point Hope

Kotzebue

Nome


0 30 60 90 12015 Miles

0 50 100 150 20025 Kilometers


Scale:


Subsistence Use By Type (October)Bowhead WhalesSeals

APPENDIX B

Example Daily Report

QUINTILLION CABLE LAY PROJECTDAILY COMMUNITY ACTIVITY REPORT

Kristina Woolston: [email protected] | 907.360.3275 | 1.800.673.4394

REPORT DATE: 18-Oct-16 *Report for 24 hours (00:00 - 23:59 AKDT)

DAILY REPORT

MARINE VESSEL AND OFFSHORE ACTIVITYREMARKS (Include vessel activities and/or schedule changes and any other notable information related to daily vessel operations)

Ile de Sein, Harriet O, Swissco 48 and Dana Cruz operating near Kotzebue

Vos Thalia and CB Networker in transit to Nome; Champion in transit to Nome

Tom cod fishing; beluga and seal hunting

Seal hunting

No marine activity

No marine activity

Ile de Brehat and Discovery conducting nearshore operations

No marine activity

Kotzebue:

Nome:

Wainwright:

Point Hope:

Oliktok Point:

Barrow:

Wainwright:

Barrow:

Oliktok Point:

MARINE SUBSISTENCE / LOCAL INFORMATION

CONTACT INFORMATION

REMARKS (Planned Activities)

No known marine subsistence activities

Fall whaling occuring in Wainwright

Ice fishing; Polar Bear Watch issued by NSB

No known marine subsistence activities

Nome:

Kotzebue:

Point Hope:

DANA CRUZ

VOS THALIA

SWISSCO 48

DISCOVERY

ILE DE SEIN

HARRIET O

CHAMPION

CB NETWORKER

ILE DE BREHAT

Quintillion Community Report Page 1 of 1 Report Date:10/18/2016

APPENDIX C

Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan

Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan

Quintillion Subsea Cable-Lay Project, 2017

INTRODUCTION

Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC (Quintillion) has applied for authorization to harass marine mammals during their planned 2017 fiber-optic cable-lay and operations and maintenance (O&M) project in the Arctic marine waters of Alaska. To meet an application requirement, Quintillion is proposing to implement this marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan (4MP) to minimize potential project impacts to marine mammals. Quintillion understands that this 4MP will be subject to review by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the North Slope Borough, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the Alaska Beluga Committee, the Ice Seal Committee, Eskimo Walrus Commission, Alaska Nanuuq Commission, and others, and that refinements may be required. The primary concern is Level B harassment noise (cavitation) emanating from drive propellers and thrusters used by the cable-lay ship during cable laying, reburying, and continuous dynamic positioning, and the general noise from the cable-lay barge during simultaneous trenching and winching activities. There are no Level A harassment or injury concerns, because underwater noise levels do not significantly exceed permanent threshold shift (PTS) thresholds (I&R 2016). Quintillion will employ NMFS-approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs) to monitor the harassment zones and implement mitigation measures as needed.

Project Area In 2016 Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC (Quintillion), installed substantial portions of a subsea fiber-optic cable network (the project) along the northern and western coasts of Alaska to provide high speed internet connectivity to six rural Alaska communities. When completed, the subsea fiber-optic cable network will link with an existing North Slope terrestrial‐based fiber-optic line. The project will consist of 1,904 kilometers (km) (1,183 miles [mi]) of submerged fiber-optic cable that includes a main trunk line and six branch lines to onshore facilities in Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Barrow, and Oliktok Point (Figure 1-1).

The 2016 program successfully installed the vast majority (96%) of the cable, but did not complete the entire project. Work that will carry over into the 2017 season includes: 76-km (47-mi) from where the cable exits the Horizontal Directionally Drilled (HDD) pipe toward the Oliktok branching unit or BU (Figure 1-2), system testing, and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of any areas that do not meet testing requirements. O&M activity could occur at any portion of the cable and could involve retrieving, repairing, and reburying cable.

Figure 1-1. Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC’s fiber-optic cable network.

Figure 1-2. Oliktok branch route showing the nearshore and offshore sections.

Harassment Monitoring Radii Qualified PSOs will establish and monitor a marine mammal harassment zone surrounding the active cable-lay vessel where the received levels would be 120 dB or greater. For cable-lay ship activities, where the primary sound source are thrusters used during dynamic positioning (O&M activity), the monitoring zone will extend out 2.3 kilometers (km) (1.4 miles [mi]). When the ship is using a sea plow to pre-trench or bury cable, the zone would extend out farther to 5.35 km (3.32 mi). There are no current plans to monitor tug and barge activities due to the lack of space onboard these vessels for PSOs. If ice management is necessary for cable vessels to access the Oliktok route, PSO will already be stationed aboard the Ile de Batz and will monitor a radial zone of 5.13 km (3.19 mi) around the ice maneuvering tug. This same value would be used during anchor-handling activities along Section 2 (but only if space for PSOs is available). For barging activity that involves barge maneuvering, winching, and trenching along Section 1 of the Oliktok route, the harassment zone will extend to 1.69 km (1.05 mi), although it is unlikely that there will be any safe monitoring location or berthing space available for PSOs during these very nearshore operations. These radii were developed based on the literature and sound source verification (SSV) measurements made by Illingworth & Rodkin (I&R 2016) during Quintillion’s 2016 cable-lay operations.

Sound Source Verification I&R (2016) conducted a SSV on both cable-lay ship and barge activities in 2016 (near Nome). The results from that study were used to develop the monitoring zones included in this 4MP. As a similar ship and barge are proposed for the 2017 operations, no new SSVs are planned.

Passive Acoustical Monitoring Two passive acoustical monitoring (PAM) programs were implemented in 2016 with the assistance of the NMFS Marine Mammal Laboratory. The results of these programs are detailed in the 2016 program’s 90-day report. Results of the PAM programs will also be included in a supplemental report addressing both the 2016 and 2017 cable-lay programs, as these instruments will continue to collect soundscape data throughout the year. 2017 O&M activities will be comprised of locating faults in the subsea cable installed in 2016, and conducting repairs. A specific PAM program for 2017 O&M is not practical, because location of faults (if any) and repair activities are not known. Moreover, the proposed 2017 cable-lay barge operations would occur off of Oliktok Point, a very remote location where small boats are not available for placement of PAM moorings. Further, only a small amount of data could be collected given the cable-lay barge would only make a single quick pass. Quintillion will communicate with the Marine Mammal Laboratory at the end of the 2017 field season to determine whether any of the 2017 activities occurred close enough to an active acoustical recorder to warrant analyzing the data for noise caused by cable-lay operations. However, the 2016 PAM program has already provided a scientific contribution to the project, and a new program (and very small) program is unlikely to contribute significantly to our understanding of the soundscape and the marine mammals living within.

Visual Vessel-Based Monitoring The vessel-based monitoring will be designed to cover the requirements of the IHA for this project. The objectives of the vessel-based monitoring will be to:

• ensure that disturbance to marine mammals is minimized and all permit stipulations are followed

• document the effects of the project on marine mammals

• collect data on the occurrence and distribution of marine mammals in the proposed project area.

The 4MP will be implemented by a team of experienced PSOs, including both biologists and local Alaska Natives (Inupiat/Yupik). A team of two or three PSOs will be stationed aboard the cable ship, beginning at Dutch Harbor, and will implement mitigation measures during all daytime operations. An experienced field crew leader (lead PSO) will be designated to oversee the monitoring and mitigation program. With NMFS and USFWS consultation, PSOs will be hired by Quintillion. PSOs will normally be on duty in shifts no longer than 4 hours and no more than a total of 12 hours per day. There are no current plans to deploy PSOs from any of the barges are there are no available berthing facilities, and the barge deck is a safety hazard for non-construction personnel.

During operation, the PSO(s) will systematically scan the area around the vessel with standard reticle binoculars or long-range big-eye binoculars. Laser range finders (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation. Range finders will be used for training observers to estimate distances visually, but are generally not useful in directly measuring distances to animals.

All observations and notable vessel activity will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified daily by the lead PSOs by a manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing and archiving.

The vessel-based monitoring will provide:

• the basis for real-time mitigation, if necessary, as required by the IHA

• information needed to estimate the number of “Level B takes” of marine mammals by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS and USFWS

• data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the areas where the cable-lay and O&M operations are conducted

• information to compare the distances, distributions, behavior, and movements of marine mammals relative to the source vessels at times with and without cable-lay activity

• a communication channel to coastal communities as needed, including Inupiat hunters

• employment opportunities for local residents and development/experience for local PSOs.

Protected Species Observers

Vessel-based monitoring of marine mammals will be by trained PSOs throughout the period of operation to comply with expected provisions in the IHA. The observers will monitor the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals near the vessel during all daylight periods. PSO duties will include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the cable-lay operations;

and documenting exposures of animals to sound levels that may constitute harassment as defined by NMFS and USFWS.

PSO teams will consist of Inupiat/Yupik (local) observers and experienced field biologists. A lead PSO and a local observer will be onboard each source vessel during the cable-lay operation. As in 2016, local PSOs will also function as Native cultural liaisons with hunters and whaling crews via VHF radios. If Communications and Call Centers (Com Centers) in Native villages along the Beaufort Sea coast operate in 2017, the PSOs will communicate activities through this resource.

A sufficient number of PSOs will be required onboard each cable-lay vessel to meet the following criteria:

• 100% monitoring coverage during all periods of cable-lay operation in daylight

• maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO

• maximum of about 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.

PSO Role and Responsibilities

When onboard the cable-lay vessels, there are two major parts to the PSO position:

• observe and record observations of sensitive wildlife species

• follow monitoring and data collection procedures.

The main roles of the PSOs in the monitoring program are to ensure compliance with regulations set in place by NMFS, USFWS, and other agencies to ensure that disturbance of marine mammals is minimized, and potential effects on marine mammals are documented. The PSOs will implement the monitoring and mitigation measures specified in both the NMFS-issued and USFWS-issued IHAs, and in this 4MP. The primary purpose of the PSOs onboard the vessels is to observe for marine mammals and determine numbers of marine mammals exposed to vessel noise and their reactions (where applicable) and document the information as required.

The PSOs will observe while stationed at the best available vantage point on the cable-lay vessel. Ideally, this vantage point is an elevated stable platform, such as the bridge or flying bridge, from which the PSO has an unobstructed 360-degree view of the water. The PSO(s) will scan systematically with the unaided eye and with 7x50 reticle binoculars.

The following information about marine mammal sightings will be carefully and accurately recorded:

• species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable)

• physical description of features that were observed or determined not to be present in the case of unknown or unidentified animals

• behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, including heading (if consistent)

• bearing and distance from observer, apparent reaction to activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling), closest point of approach, and behavioral pace

• time, location, speed, and activity of the source vessels; sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity.

Mitigation Measures The primary mitigation measure is to conduct most of the cable-lay activity in offshore waters away from nearshore marine mammal concentration areas (e.g., beluga breeding lagoons and spotted seal haulout sites). Also, PSOs will implement a marine mammal monitoring program to document marine mammal interactions with the cable-lay operations.

When the cable-lay fleet is traveling in Alaska waters to and from the project area (before and after completion of cable laying and O&M activities), the fleet vessels will:

• avoid concentrations or groups of whales by all vessels under the direction of Quintillion

• take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with the bowhead whales observed within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a vessel

• reduce speed to less than 5 knots when weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops (e.g., ≤0.6 mi [1 km]), to avoid the likelihood of collision with whales.

Measures to Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users Cable-lay activities will follow mitigation procedures to minimize effects on both the behavior of marine mammals and opportunities for subsistence harvest by Alaska Native communities. These activities include:

• operating mostly in offshore waters well away from nearshore subsistence harvest areas

• coordinating with various Alaska Native committees and commissions through the Plan of Cooperation process to develop operational schedules that least conflict with subsistence harvest

• monitoring local VHF radio channels for real-time communication with local hunters.

There are currently no plans for a Com Center to operate in 2017, so Quintillion will work through the Plan of Cooperation process to develop an alternative means of communicating with local Alaska Native interests, as was done in 2016.

Reporting

Weekly Reports

Weekly walrus reports will be prepared by the PSOs and submitted to USFWS no later than the close of business (Alaska time) each Thursday during the weeks that cable-lay activities take place. The field reports will summarize species detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine mammals exposed to harassment level noise.

Monthly Reports Monthly reports (ESA-listed marine mammals) will be prepared by the PSOs and submitted to NMFS no later than close of business (Alaska time) of the fifth business day following the reporting period for all months during which cable-lay activities take place. The monthly report will contain and summarize the following information:

• dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions (including Beaufort Sea state and wind force), and associated activities during the cable-lay operation and marine mammal sightings

• species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated cable-lay activity, observed throughout all monitoring activities

• estimate of the number (by species) of cetaceans and pinnipeds that have been exposed to the thruster noise (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 120 dB re 1 µPa (rms) (decibels relative to 1 microPascal root mean square) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited

• description of the implementation and effectiveness of the: (i) terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion’s Incidental Take Statement; and (ii) mitigation measures of the IHA. For the Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and describe their effectiveness, for minimizing the adverse effects of the action on ESA-listed marine mammals.

90-Day Technical Report

A report will be submitted to NMFS and USFWS within 90 days after the end of the project or at least 60 days before the request for another Incidental Take Authorization for the next open water season to enable NMFS and USFWS to incorporate observation data into the next Authorization. The report will summarize all activities and monitoring results (e.g., vessel-based visual monitoring) conducted during cable-lay activity. The 90-Day Technical Report will include the following:

• summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals)

• analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare)

• 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

• analyses of the effects of survey operations.

Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

In the event that the during the cable-lay operation a discovery is made of an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, scavenger damage), Quintillion would report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. If a walrus is involved, then USFWS will be contacted. The Applicant would provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS, USFWS, and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The report would include the following information:

• time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident,

• name and type of vessel involved,

• vessel 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), • photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

Application for the Incidental Harassment Authorization ... Application 2017.pdfwater depth. The...

Documents

Transcript of Application for the Incidental Harassment Authorization ... Application 2017.pdfwater depth. The...