u.s. fish and wildlife service marine mammals management ......issuance of an authorization for take...
TRANSCRIPT
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Marine Mammals Management Office Anchorage, Alaska
Final Environmental Assessment
for an
Incidental Harassment Authorization for Pacific Walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and
Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) during the 2017 Quintillion Fiber Optic Cable Project
July 13, 2017
ii
Proposed Action: Issuance of an authorization for take of small numbers of Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) by harassment incidental to installation of the Quintillion Fiber Optic Cable Project in the State of Alaska and associated Federal waters from July 13 – November 15, 2017.
Geographic Location:
The Federal waters of the northern Bering, Chukchi, and southwestern Beaufort seas, the marine waters of the State of Alaska, and coastal land adjacent to Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow), and Oliktok Point, Alaska.
Type of Statement: Final Environmental Assessment Date: July 2017 Responsible Official: Gregory Siekaniec, Regional Director, Alaska Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service For Additional Information:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/index.htm Alaska Region Toll Free: (800) 362-5148 Marine Mammals Management Office Phone: (907) 786-3800 1011 East Tudor Road, MS-341 Fax: (907) 786-3816
Anchorage, Alaska 99503 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This Environmental Assessment analyzes the environmental impacts of a proposal by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, to authorize the incidental take of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, in the State of Alaska and associated Federal waters of the northern Bering, Chukchi, and southwestern Beaufort seas. The applicant, Quintillion Subsea Operation, LLC, has requested an Incidental Harassment Authorization for the continuation of work begun in 2016 to install a fiber optic cable on the sea floor. Work will occur in summer and fall 2017. We anticipate no take by injury or death and include none in the authorization, which would be for take by harassment only. We also included a summary of the comments we received and our responses to those comments resulting from our Federal Register Notice of Availability published on June 1, 2017 (82 FR 25304).
Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management. 2017. Final
Environmental Assessment for an Incidental Harassment Authorization for Pacific Walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in Alaska and Associated State and Federal Waters During the 2017 Quintillion Fiber Optic Cable Project. Department of the Interior. Anchorage, Alaska.
iii
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine whether the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for take of Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during installation of a subsea fiber optic cable network would constitute a significant Federal action. If we determine the potential impacts are not significant, this analysis, with the analyses incorporated by reference, will support a finding of no significant impact for the IHA.
Quintillion Subsea Operation, LLC, (Quintillion) proposes to install cable in Federal waters of the northern Bering, Chukchi, and southwestern Beaufort seas, in marine waters of the State of Alaska, and on coastal land adjacent to Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Utqiagvik (formally Barrow), and Oliktok Point, Alaska. Most of the cable was installed during 2016, and the Service previously issued an IHA and an EA under the provisions of NEPA for the 2016 work. During summer and fall 2017, a section of cable near Oliktok Point will be installed and the entire cable line will be tested. Any remaining operations and maintenance work will also be completed.
Project activities could cause Pacific walruses or polar bears to be harassed. Harassment is a form of take generally prohibited under the MMPA. Take of a small number of animals from incidental harassment may be permitted under an IHA if the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock, will not have an unmitigable impact on the availability of the species for subsistence use, and if the Service establishes permissible methods of take and mitigation measures which effect the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat.
Work to install a fiber optic cable in 2017 could affect approximately 250 Pacific walruses and 20 polar bears by exposing them to the sights and sounds of the cable-laying activities. Animals from both species are most likely to respond by moving away from the activities. The project will not affect the ability of Pacific walruses or polar bears to move to other areas, and it will not alter the availability of other suitable habitat. Pacific walruses and polar bears will not need to move far in relation to their normal travel patterns, will not be displaced for long, and are not likely to be injured by Quintillion’s operations. Impacts, if any, to subsistence harvest by Alaska Natives will be minimized. For these reasons, the Service has determined that the required conditions for issuance of an IHA can be met. We propose to authorize the incidental taking by harassment of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears from date of issuance of the IHA through November 15, 2017. We base these findings on potential and documented impacts of disturbance on Pacific walruses and polar bears, scientific studies on these species, commercial data, and current information regarding the life history and status of these species.
The Proposed Action (issuance of an IHA) would authorize incidental take of Pacific walruses and polar bears during Quintillion’s activities. Authorization would be limited to Level B
iv
harassment only (any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that disturbs a marine mammal by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering). The Service would stipulate the permissible methods of taking and required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such taking in order to reduce or minimize negative impacts. Under the No Action Alternative, the IHA would not be issued, and incidental take would not be authorized. Quintillion would be responsible for preventing incidental take in compliance with the MMPA. The No Action Alternative would not prohibit Quintillion from constructing the fiber optic network.
This EA provides an evaluation of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of issuance of the IHA, as required by NEPA. Based on available information, the Service concludes that issuance of an IHA for the Quintillion cable-laying project would not significantly affect the quality of the natural or human environment provided that all the recommended mitigation measures set forth in the EA and the IHA are implemented. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is unnecessary in this proceeding.
Frequently Used Acronyms and Abbreviations
4MP Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CI Confidence Interval CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CFR Code of Federal Regulations CS Chukchi Sea stock of polar bears EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act EWC Eskimo Walrus Commission FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register HSWUA Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITR Incidental Take Regulation MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act NMFS The National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration O&M Operations and Maintenance POC Plan of Cooperation PSO Protected Species Observer PTS Permanent Threshold Shift QWC Qayassiq Walrus Commission ROV Remotely Operating Vehicle SAR Stock Assessment Report
v
SBS Southern Beaufort Sea SEL Sound Exposure Level SELcum Cumulative Sound Exposure Level Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SSV Sound Source Verification TTS Temporary Threshold Shift U.S.C. U.S. Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Units of Measure
µPa Micropascal kn Knot dB Decibel (see Key Definitions) m Meter dBRMS Root-mean-square decibel (see mph Miles per Hour Key Definitions) m/s Meters per Second ft Foot MHz Megahertz Hz Hertz mi Mile kHz Kilohertz mi/h Miles per hour km Kilometer min Minute km/h Kilometer per hour s Second
Key Definitions
Applicant – Quintillion Subsea Operation, LLC, who has petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue an incidental harassment authorization for Pacific walruses and polar bears.
dB – Decibel level, a measure of sound pressure level; all dB levels herein are referenced to 1 μPa underwater and 20 μPa in air.
dBRMS – Root-mean-squared decibel level, the square root of the average of the squared sound pressure level over some duration (typically 1 second). The dBRMS is used herein unless otherwise indicated.
Ensonification zone – The area surrounding a sound source where received sound levels may exceed a specified threshold.
Geographic region – The area specified for inclusion in the Incidental Harassment Authorization. It includes Federal waters of the northern Bering, Chukchi, and southwestern Beaufort seas, the marine water of the State of Alaska, and coastal land adjacent to Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Utqiagvik, and Oliktok Point, as in Figure 1.
Harass – For non-military readiness activities, any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock
vi
in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Incidental take – Take events that are infrequent, unavoidable, or accidental. It does not mean that the taking must be unexpected.
Mitigation – An action that reduces the consequences of an activity for an animal, including measures to prevent exposure or to reduce frequency, duration, or intensity of exposure.
Negligible impact – An impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
No Action Alternative – The alternative wherein no authorization for take would be issued.
Proposed Action – Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization for activities associated with the installation of the proposed Quintillion fiber optic cable, including mobilization, preliminary work, survey work, cable laying, post-burial work, activities of support crews, and demobilization occurring July 13–November 15, 2017.
Small numbers – Our small numbers analysis evaluates whether the anticipated take of marine mammals is small relative to the size of the overall population. A more precise formulation of “small numbers” is not possible because the concept is not capable of being expressed in absolute numerical limits. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has expressly approved this definition (Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d at 905-907). A regulatory definition is provided at 50 CFR 18.27; however, the Service no longer relies upon or applies this regulatory definition. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 902-907 [2012]) has determined that the regulatory definition conflates “small numbers” with “negligible impact,” whereas the MMPA establishes these as separate standards.
Sound exposure level (SEL) – A measure of energy. Specifically, it is the dB level of the time integral of the squared-instantaneous sound pressure normalized to a 1-second period.
Specified Activity (or Activities) – Quintillion’s proposed fiber optic cable-laying project and all activities associated with this work in 2017.
Take – To harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal, or attempt these actions.
Unmitigable adverse impact – An impact resulting from the specified activity that: (1) is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, directly displacing subsistence users, or by placing physical barriers between marine mammals and subsistence hunters; and (2) cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
vii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION....................................1 1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................2 1.3 Laws, Regulations, Agreements, and Policies .........................................................3 1.3.1 Marine Mammal Protection Act ...............................................................3 1.3.2 Endangered Species Act ...........................................................................5 1.3.3 National Environmental Policy Act ..........................................................6 1.3.4 Co-Management Agreements ...................................................................7 1.4 Scope of Analysis ....................................................................................................7 Chapter 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ....................................................8 2.1 No Action Alternative ..............................................................................................8 2.2 Preferred Alternative – Issuance of Incidental Harassment Authorization .............8 2.2.1 Geographic Location .................................................................................9 2.2.2 Description of Activities ...........................................................................9 2.2.3 The Nature and Level of Proposed Take ................................................11 2.2.4 Mitigation and Monitoring ......................................................................12 2.3 Alternatives Considered Not Feasible or Practicable ............................................18 Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................19 3.1 Physical Environment ............................................................................................19 3.1.1 Climate and Ecological Conditions ........................................................19 3.1.2 Sea Ice Characteristics ............................................................................21 3.1.3 Climate Change .......................................................................................22 3.2 Biological Environment .........................................................................................23 3.2.1 Pacific walrus ..........................................................................................23 3.2.2 Polar Bears ..............................................................................................26 3.3 Socio-Economic Environment ...............................................................................29 Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................30 4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...................................................................30 4.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) – Issuance of an IHA ..................................30 4.2.1 Potential Impacts on the Biological Environment ..................................31 4.2.2 Potential Impacts on the Physical Environment .....................................44 4.2.3 Socio-economic Impacts .........................................................................45 4.2.4 Effects of Mitigation Measures ...............................................................46 4.2.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................47
viii
Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................54 5.1 Small Numbers.......................................................................................................54 5.2 Negligible Impact...................................................................................................55 5.3 Effects on Subsistence Uses...................................................................................55 5.4 Conclusion Summary .............................................................................................56 Chapter 6. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .......................................................57 6.1 Request for Public Comments ...............................................................................57 6.2 Comments Received ..............................................................................................57 6.2.1 Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) ........................................57 6.2.2 Environmental Review, Inc. (ERI) .........................................................58 6.2.3 Public at Large ........................................................................................58 6.3 Modifications to the Draft EA ...............................................................................58 6.4 Summary ................................................................................................................60 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................60 A-D ..........................................................................................................................60 E - H ..........................................................................................................................63 I - L ..........................................................................................................................65 M - P ..........................................................................................................................67 R - T ..........................................................................................................................70 U - Z ..........................................................................................................................73
Figures
Figure 1. Geographic areas of the Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC proposed fiber optic cable network ................................................................................................................10
Figure 2. Bathymetric map of the Chukchi Sea and surrounding area with geographical place names and ocean currents ..............................................................................................20
Figure 3. Average monthly Arctic Sea ice extent February 1979 – 2016 .....................................23 Figure 4. Distribution of the Pacific walrus in the Bering and Chukchi seas in winter and
summer……… ..............................................................................................................24 Figure 5. Utilization distribution estimates of Pacific walrus foraging and occupancy in the
Chukchi Sea, 2008 – 2011. ............................................................................................26 Figure 6. Arctic shipping routes. Northwest Passage, Northeast Passage, and future Central
Arctic shipping route. ................................................................................................... 51
Tables
Table 1. Components of the human environment not affected by issuance of the Incidental Harassment Authorization ...............................................................................................8
1
Chapter 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Introduction
Quintillion Subsea Operation, LLC (Quintillion or “the applicant”) has proposed to install a subsea fiber optic cable to provide internet service to six rural northwestern Alaska communities. The proposed cable installation project or “the specified activity” consists of installation of 1,904 kilometers (km) (1,183 miles [mi]) of fiber optic cable beneath the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (Figure 1, page 10). Most of the cable was installed in 2016, and the Service issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) at that time for those activities, but additional work is needed to complete the project in 2017. The proposed work will occur during the summer/fall open-water season of 2017 and will include installation of 76 km (47 mi) of cable north of Oliktok Point in the Beaufort Sea, testing along the entire cable route, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of any areas that do not meet testing requirements. The Quintillion project may encounter Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during the course of work.
All species of marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.). The responsibilities for the protection, conservation, and management of marine mammals under the MMPA are shared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In Alaska, species within the Service’s jurisdiction include sea otters (Enhydra lutris), Pacific walruses, and polar bears. Review of potential impacts of this project to species under NMFS jurisdiction can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm#quintillion2017.
The MMPA prohibits the taking of marine mammals, except as explicitly allowed by the MMPA, or as authorized by permit. To “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362[13]). The MMPA defines “harassment,” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock (the MMPA calls this “Level A harassment”), or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (the MMPA calls this “Level B harassment”).
Pacific walruses and polar bears could experience take by Level B harassment if they are disturbed by the presence of vessels and activities associated with the Quintillion cable project. Pacific walruses could also be disturbed by the underwater sounds generated by propellers, thrusters, echo sounders, and beacon transceivers used by the cable-laying ships.
Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, the Service may authorize the incidental, but not intentional, take by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals upon the request of a U.S. citizen for a period of up to 1 year provided certain statutory and regulatory procedures are followed and the Service makes the following determinations: (a) take is of a small number of
2
animals; (b) take will have a negligible impact on the species or stock; and (c) take will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. The Service refers to this authorization as an IHA.
On November 28, 2016, the Service’s Region 7 Marine Mammal Management Office (hereafter, the Service or “we”) received a request from Quintillion to provide an IHA for take by harassment of Pacific walruses (also referred to as “walruses”) and polar bears that may occur incidental to the cable-laying project in the marine waters and coastal lands of Alaska during summer and fall, 2017. Quintillion updated its IHA application on January 19, 2017, and additional project information was received on February 10, 2017.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in response to Quintillion’s request for an IHA. This EA analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of issuance of an IHA (the “Proposed Action”) and a No Action Alternative to determine if issuance of an IHA for Quintillion’s project is a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. This EA is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1500-1508. This statute and the implementing regulations direct the Service, as a Federal agency, to:
• Assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action; • Identify adverse effects that cannot be avoided if the Proposed Action is implemented; • Evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Action, including a No Action Alternative; and • Describe the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action together with other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
The IHA will not authorize the Quintillion cable project. Rather, it will: (i) establish permissible methods of take and mitigation requirements; (ii) prescribe means of effecting the least practicable impact on the availability of the species for subsistence uses; and (iii) identify monitoring and reporting requirements to better understand the effects on the species.
1.2 Purpose and Need
The applicant proposes to continue construction of a subsea fiber optic cable through areas of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas that provide habitat for walruses and polar bears. Animals that encounter the project activities will be exposed to humans, vessels, machinery, cable-laying equipment, and all the sights, sounds, and smells of this work. Such exposure has the potential to disturb walruses and polar bears by causing biologically significant disruption of behavior patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, nursing, feeding, or sheltering, and therefore could cause nonlethal incidental take by Level B harassment. Without prior authorization, such take is prohibited by the MMPA.
In February 2017, the Service determined that Quintillion had submitted an adequate and complete petition demonstrating both the need and potential eligibility for issuance of an IHA in connection with the proposed cable-laying activities. The Service, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
3
the MMPA, has a corresponding duty to determine whether and how we can authorize take by Level B harassment incidental to the activities described in the applicant’s petition.
The dual purposes of this EA are:
1. To fulfill the requirements of the MMPA by: a. Evaluating the amount of take that would be authorized by the IHA; b. Determining whether such take would have a negligible impact on affected
marine mammal species or stocks; c. Determining whether such take would have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses; and d. Describing mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce the potential impacts.
2. To fulfill the requirements of NEPA by: a. Analyzing the probable environmental impacts of the Proposed Action; b. Analyzing a reasonable range of alternatives that achieve the purpose and need for
the Proposed Action, and analyzing a No Action Alternative; c. Evaluating the effects of the Proposed Action (the issuance of the IHA) on the
human environment; and d. Determining if the Proposed Action is a major Federal action that significantly
affects the quality of the human environment.
Any alternatives considered under NEPA must meet the Service’s statutory and regulatory requirements. Our described purpose and need guide us in developing reasonable alternatives for consideration, including alternative means of mitigating potential adverse effects.
1.3 Laws, Regulations, Agreements, and Policies
Marine Mammal Protection Act 1.3.1
The MMPA establishes a broad moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products, except as explicitly allowed by the MMPA, or as authorized by permit. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA directs the Service to allow, upon request of a U.S. citizen, the incidental but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, while engaging in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region for a period not to exceed 1 year, if we make certain findings and provide a notice of a proposed IHA to the public for review. The Service must find, based on the best scientific evidence available, that the total of such taking associated with the specified activity will have a negligible impact on the species or stock, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. Conditions may be specified for the proposed activities that allow these findings to be made. We must use the best available information from all commercial and scientific sources to evaluate the activities’ impacts and make these findings. An IHA does not permit, approve, or otherwise allow any individual or class of commercial, industrial, or development activity to occur.
4
The terms “small numbers,” “negligible impact,” and “unmitigable adverse impact” are defined in 50 CFR 18.27, the Service’s regulations governing take of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities. “Small numbers” is defined as a portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a negligible impact on that species or stock. However, we do not rely on that definition here, as it conflates the terms “small numbers” and “negligible impact,” which we recognize as two separate and distinct requirements. Instead our small numbers determination evaluates whether the number of marine mammals likely to be taken is small relative to the size of the overall population. “Negligible impact” is defined as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. “Unmitigable adverse impact” is an impact resulting from the specified activity that: (1) is likely to reduce the availability of the species or stock to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, directly displacing subsistence users, or by placing physical barriers between marine mammals and subsistence hunters; and (2) cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met. Additional definitions of the terms used in the EA are listed under Key Definitions (page v).
For an IHA to be issued, the Service must set forth the following: (1) permissible methods of taking; (2) means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance; and (3) requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. Habitat areas of significance for walruses include: (a) marginal sea ice zones, (b) areas with consistent polynyas in consolidated pack ice or multiyear ice, (c) areas of high benthic productivity, (d) areas where nutrient-rich ocean currents converge, and (e) terrestrial haulouts. Habitat areas of significance for polar bears consist of the designated critical habitat, which includes sea ice, barrier islands, and terrestrial denning habitat. The Service must therefore specify avoidance and minimization measures for effecting the least practicable impact of the specified activity on these habitats. We must also publish a notice of a proposed IHA in the Federal Register (FR) for public comment. The Proposed IHA for this project was published on June 1, 2017 (82 FR 23504).
Subsistence harvest by Alaska Natives is authorized under section 101(b) and Title V of the MMPA. The MMPA allows Alaska Natives who reside in Alaska and dwell on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean to harvest marine mammals if such harvest is for subsistence purposes or for purposes of creating and selling authentic Native handicrafts and clothing, as long as the harvest is not done in a wasteful manner. Currently there are no restrictions in place under the MMPA for the harvest of Pacific walruses anywhere they may occur or polar bears taken from the Beaufort Sea. Polar bears taken by Alaska Natives from the Chukchi Sea must be done under the provisions of Title V of the MMPA.
The status of each species or stock protected by the MMPA is documented in periodic stock assessment reports (SARs) pursuant to MMPA section 117. Each SAR includes a description of the stock's geographic range, a minimum population estimate, current population trends, current and maximum net productivity rates, optimum sustainable population levels, allowable removal levels, and estimates of annual human-caused mortality and injury through interactions with
5
commercial fisheries and subsistence hunters. The most recent SARs were published in 2014 for walruses (USFWS 2014) and in 2010 for polar bears (USFWS 2010a,b).
Endangered Species Act 1.3.2
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) establishes statutory requirements for conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants in danger of or likely to become in danger of extinction. Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) provides authority for the listing of species, subspecies, or distinct population segments as either threatened or endangered, and for the designation of critical habitat for listed species. After a species has been listed as threatened or endangered, the provisions of the ESA afford protection to such species and to designated critical habitat in the form of various procedural and substantive requirements and prohibitions. For example, under section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536), all Federal agencies must ensure through consultation with the Service (or, depending upon the affected species, the NMFS of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]) that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. In addition, under sections 4(d) (for threatened species) and 9 (for endangered species) of the ESA [16 U.S.C. 1533(d) and 1538], the taking of listed species is or may by regulation be prohibited, except pursuant to an incidental take authorization or statutory exemption. Subsistence harvest of threatened and endangered species is allowed under section 10(e) of the ESA.
The status of the Pacific walrus was evaluated in response to a 2008 petition to list this species as threatened or endangered under the ESA. After review, the Service concluded that listing the Pacific walrus as a threatened or endangered species may be warranted, but was precluded at the time by higher priority actions (76 FR 7634, February 10, 2011). Accordingly, the Pacific walrus was designated as a candidate species. By September 2017, the Service must either propose adding Pacific walrus to the ESA list or determine that listing is no longer warranted. Consistent with established agency policy, the Service treats candidate species as if they were proposed for ESA listing. Consequently, section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires the Service MMM to conference with the Service’s Ecological Service program on the effects of issuance of an IHA for Pacific walruses in order to evaluate whether the action will jeopardize the continued existence of the Pacific walrus. We conferenced with Ecological Service’s Fairbanks Field Office (FFO) and adopted all recommendations made for the protection of the Pacific walrus. The FFO concluded that issuance of an IHA is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Pacific walrus. This evaluation and finding is available on the Service’s website at http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm (USFWS 2017a)
The Service listed the polar bear as a threatened throughout its range under the ESA on May 15, 2008, due to loss of sea ice habitat caused by climate change (73 FR 28212). The Service published a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA for the polar bear on February 20, 2013 (78 FR 11766). The “4(d)” rule provides for measures that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of polar bears. The 4(d) rule: (a) in most instances, adopts the regulatory requirements of the MMPA and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the polar bear; (b)
6
provides that incidental, nonlethal take of polar bears from activities outside of the bear’s current range is not prohibited; (c) clarifies that the 4(d) rule does not alter the consultation requirements of section 7 of the ESA; and (d) applies the standard ESA protections for threatened species when an activity is not covered by an MMPA or CITES authorization or exemption. The Service designated critical habitat for polar bears in the U.S. on January 6, 2011 (75 FR 76086). Critical habitat for the polar bear consists of barrier island habitat, sea ice habitat (both described in geographic terms), and terrestrial denning habitat (a functional determination). Barrier island habitat includes coastal barrier islands and spits along Alaska’s coast. Sea-ice habitat is located over the continental shelf and includes water 300 meters (m) (984 feet [ft]) or less in depth. Terrestrial denning habitat includes lands within 32 km (20 mi) of the northern coast of Alaska between the Canadian border and the Kavik River and within 8 km (5 mi) of the coast between the Kavik River and Utqiagvik. The total designated area covers approximately 484,734 km2 (187,157 mi2) within the lands and waters of the U.S. Polar bear critical habitat is described in detail in 75 FR 76086 (December 7, 2010). We completed consultation under section 7 of the ESA with the FBFO regarding effects of the proposed action on polar bears and their designated critical habitat. The FFO concurred with our determination that issuance of an IHA is not likely to adversely affect polar bears and critical habitat (USFWS 2017a). The Service is directed to prepare recovery plans and status reviews for listed species. Section 4(f) of the ESA directs the Service to identify “objective, measurable” recovery criteria and site-specific recovery actions (16 USC 1533(f)(1)(B)). The Service finalized the conservation plan for the polar bear in December of 2016, identifying recovery criteria and highlighting actions for the conservation of polar bears in the U.S. (USFWS 2016). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA directs the Service to conduct a status review every 5 years to ensure the listing of a species is accurate. This review considers the best scientific and commercial data available regarding species biology, habitat conditions, conservation measures, threats, and other new information. The Service completed a status review for the polar bear in January 2017, determining that the status as a threatened species should be maintained (USFWS 2017b). The Service has also published deterrence guidelines (75 FR 61631, October 6, 2010) identifying methods for deterring a polar bear without injuring the animal. These guidelines are voluntary and are intended to help prevent interactions between bears and humans while providing for the safety of both. They emphasize use of passive and preventative measures such as protective fencing, bear-resistant containers, and certain acoustic devices (air horns, vehicle engines) that can be used to minimize incidental encounters with polar bears without causing take.
National Environmental Policy Act 1.3.3
Section 102 of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)) mandates a thoughtful and reasonably thorough analysis of the probable environmental impacts of a proposed major Federal action, including analysis of both a reasonable range of alternatives that achieve the purpose and need for a proposed action, and analysis of a no action alternative. Such an analysis is referred to as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a concise document that provides sufficient information and analysis to determine whether preparation of
7
an EIS is necessary. Pursuant to NEPA, preparation of an EIS is required for major Federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An EIS is not required if, after preparation of an EA, a Federal agency issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Accordingly, NEPA does not establish substantive statutory or regulatory standards or compel a particular decision to approve, modify, or disapprove a proposal. The requirements of NEPA are entirely procedural.
The procedural provisions outlining Federal agency responsibilities under NEPA are provided in the CEQ’s implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). These regulations direct agencies to reduce excessive paperwork and eliminate repetitive discussion by tiering to or incorporating by reference existing NEPA documents (40 CFR 1502.20-21). This EA adheres to these recommendations by summarizing and adopting by reference the discussions in pre-existing NEPA documents. In the present context, this approach is relevant and useful with respect to discussion of climate change. This EA incorporates by reference current information on climate change in the offshore and onshore areas of the Arctic from the following NEPA documents:
• Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, Chukchi Sea Planning Area - Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea, Alaska, Final Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (BOEM 2015) at 3.1.9 (Climate Change); and
• National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2012) at 3.2.1.1 (Climate Change on the North Slope).
Co-Management Agreements 1.3.4
The 1994 amendment to the MMPA included provisions for the development of cooperative agreements between the Service and Alaska Native organizations to conserve marine mammals and provide for the co-management of subsistence use by Alaska Natives. Section 119 of the MMPA amendments authorized the appropriation of funds to implement co-management activities in Alaska. The Service, the Indigenous People's Council for Marine Mammals, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and NMFS developed a Memorandum of Agreement to provide the foundation and direction for the use of co-management funds. Cooperative agreements have been adopted between the Service and the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC) for management of walruses. We are currently seeking a partner for co-management of polar bears. Alaska Native organizations participate in a variety of management issues including biological sampling programs, harvest monitoring, collection of Native knowledge, international coordination on management issues, and development of local conservation plans.
1.4 Scope of Analysis
In accordance with NEPA and CEQ implementing regulations, this document analyzes whether the Proposed Action (issuance and implementation of the IHA) will result in impacts constituting a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. As stated previously, issuance of the IHA pursuant to the MMPA would not authorize cable-laying activities. This document’s scope of analysis includes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of issuance of the IHA on elements of the human environment, particularly Pacific walruses and
8
polar bears. Issuance of an IHA is contingent upon the Service’s findings that the specified activity will have a negligible impact on the species or stock, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. Therefore, we also analyze the impacts of the specified activity on walruses and polar bears. Analysis of effects of the specified activity demonstrates whether these findings can be made, and whether the IHA can be issued. This EA does not further evaluate effects on the elements listed in Table 1 because the Proposed Action would not significantly affect those elements.
Table 1. Components of the human environment not affected by issuance of an IHA. Biological Physical Socioeconomic / Cultural Amphibians Air Quality Commercial Fishing Marine Mammals (Except Pacific walruses and Polar Bears)
Geography Military Activities Land Use Recreational Fishing Oceanography Shipping and Boating
Invasive Species State Marine Protected Areas National Historic Preservation Sites Seabirds Federal Marine Protected Areas National Trails Plants National Estuarine Research Reserves Low Income Populations Fish National Marine Sanctuaries Minority Populations Aquatic organisms Park Land Nationwide Inventory of Rivers Ecologically Critical Areas Prime Farmlands Public Health and Safety Essential Fish Habitat Wetlands Historic and Cultural Resources Wild and Scenic Rivers [Top]
Chapter 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no authorization for incidental take would be issued. Because the IHA will not directly authorize the cable-laying activities, lack of an IHA would not preclude Quintillion from conducting the specified activities. The mitigation measures imposed by the IHA for reducing the effects of activities on walruses and polar bears would also not be required. If the applicant were to proceed without the IHA and the associated mitigation measures, the likelihood, frequency, or intensity of take could increase. The MMPA’s prohibitions on the taking of marine mammals would remain in effect and the applicant would be liable for penalties if take were to occur. The MMPA requires the Service to allow the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, if it is found that the specified activities will have a negligible impact on the identified species or stocks, and there will be no unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. Accordingly, if these finding are made based upon the best available scientific information, the No Action Alternative would not allow the Service to meet this obligation.
2.2 Preferred Alternative – Issuance of Incidental Harassment Authorization
The preferred alternative is the Proposed Action. The Service proposes to issue an IHA for the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by Level B harassment of 250 Pacific walruses and 20
9
polar bears during continuation of cable-laying activities begun in 2016 in the marine waters of Alaska and the nearby coastal communities, as described in this document and in the applicant’s petition, available online at http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm. We neither anticipate nor propose authorization for intentional take or take by injury or death.
The Final IHA will be effective immediately after issuance through November 15, 2017. The Final IHA will incorporate the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in this proposal. The applicant will be expected and required to implement and fully comply with those requirements. If the nature or level of activity changes or exceeds that described in this proposal and in the IHA petition, the Service will reevaluate its findings and may modify, suspend, or revoke the authorization if the findings are not accurate. Take that exceeds the amount or level described herein, or occurs without full implementation of the final mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements will be prohibited.
The Proposed IHA analyzed the potential impacts of this alternative in detail (82 FR 25304, June 1, 2017). We incorporate those analyses by reference in this EA and summarize them here, along with mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for inclusion in the Final IHA. Mitigation measures are a combination of those proposed by the applicant and those developed by the Service, with consideration of comments received during public review.
Geographic Location 2.2.1
In 2016, Quintillion installed fiber optic cable in the marine waters of the northern Bering, Chukchi, and southwestern Beaufort seas, in waters of the State of Alaska, and on coastal land of Alaska (Figure 1). Quintillion plans to complete the project in 2017. When completed, the subsea fiber optic cable network will link with existing terrestrial‐based systems to provide high-speed internet to six rural Alaska communities. The project will consist of 1,904 km (1,183 mi) of submerged cable, including a main trunk line and six branch lines to onshore facilities in Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Utqiagvik, and Oliktok Point. Oliktok Point is located 260 km (162 mi) southeast of Point Barrow. This line will connect over land with the community of Nuiqsut and the Prudhoe Bay industrial center.
Description of Activities 2.2.2
The 2016 program successfully installed the majority (96 percent) of the cable, but did not complete the entire project. Work in 2017 will include installation of 76 km (47 mi) of cable along the Oliktok branch line, system testing, and O&M. The O&M activities will occur along portions of the cable that do not meet testing requirements, and will involve inspecting, retrieving, repairing, and reburying cable. The O&M work will also include placement of up to four 18-m2 (194-ft2) concrete mattresses to protect cable splices from ice scour.
Activities associated with the project, including mobilization, preliminary work, cable laying, O&M, post-burial work, and demobilization are planned to occur June 1 – November 15, 2017. A variety of vessels and equipment will be used, depending on location and water depth. Vessels include a cable ship and a support vessel, shallow draft barges, and tugs. Equipment includes a
10
sea plow, vibro plow, and a submerged remotely operating vehicle (ROV). Cable components will include the cable, interconnecting hardware, and repeaters. Echo sounders, transceivers, and transponders will be used to monitor the water depth and the position of equipment on the seafloor. Work may be conducted day or night, and will begin in the summer as soon as ice conditions allow. Project vessels will not pass through or work in the Chukchi Sea prior to July 1, 2017. Therefore, encounters with Pacific walruses and polar bears in June are unlikely.
The onshore cable landing at Oliktok Point was completed in 2016 and included a segment of horizontal directionally drilled (HDD) pipe to connect the subsea cable with the land-based facilities. In nearshore waters between the HDD pipe and approximately 6.5 km (4 mi) from shore, cable will be placed in a trench dug by a vibro plow. The vibro plow will be pulled by a construction barge (the Crowley 218 or similar). Maximum trenching speed is 1.6 km per hour (km/h) (0.6 mi per hour [mi/hr] or 0.54 knots [kn]). The construction barge will winch itself along the route using moored anchor lines. The anchors will be placed by a derrick operating from the deck of a small pontoon barge. A small river tug will maneuver the pontoon barge into position. The pontoon barge and river tug will also be used to retrieve the anchors.
Figure 1. Geographic area of the Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC proposed fiber optic cable network featuring the Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area (HSWUA). [Top]
11
In deeper water, between approximately 6.5 and 16.5 km (4 – 10.3 mi) from shore, work will be conducted from the construction barge pulling the vibro plow and winching itself along anchor lines in the same manner as for the shallow-water work. However, in this section, a larger ocean-class tug (the Vos Thalia or a similar tug) will be used to place and move the anchors.
In offshore areas, including along approximately 60 km (37 mi) of the Oliktok line, the cable will be laid by the Ile de Batz or a similar vessel (Ile de Sein, CB Networker, or Ile de Brehat). The ship is 140 m (460 ft) in length and 23 m (77 ft) in breadth, with berths for a crew of 70. It pulls a sea plow that cuts a trench while the cable is fed through a depressor that pushes it into the trench. Prior to laying cable, seafloor sediment may be loosened by making multiple passes with the sea plow (this activity is termed “pre-trenching”). The normal speed during plowing and pre-trenching is approximately 0.6 km/hr (0.37 mi/hr or 0.32 kn).
The Ile de Batz will also perform O&M operations along the entire system, including the main trunk line and six branch lines. If system faults are detected, repairs would include retrieving the cable section, repairing it aboard the ship, and if required, reburying the cable using the sea plow or a ROV equipped with a jetting tool. While it is expected that the cable trenches will fill in by natural current processes, it is important to ensure that cable splices and interconnections are fully buried. The amount of cable that would need to be retrieved or reburied cannot be determined prior to testing but could involve several kilometers for each fault repair. Quintillion provided a maximum estimate of up to 125 km (78 mi) of cable repair or reburial work for the entire project. This estimate was based on O&M needs for other projects, plus a buffer for possible complications due to the Arctic environment.
Quintillion proposes to conduct limited ice management during emergencies, if needed. Cable laying cannot be done in the presence of ice due to safety concerns, but Quintillion hopes to begin work on the Oliktok branch as soon as possible after the seasonal retreat of sea ice from Alaska’s northern coast. The Ile de Batz must be routed past Point Barrow for this work. Since 2007, breakup of coastal sea ice along much of Alaska’s North Slope has occurred in June, but a persistent ice field north of Point Barrow often remains into July. Ice could also reappear at the end of the season or drift into the work area at any time. Quintillion originally proposed to traverse broken ice around Point Barrow with the aid of an ice tug that, if needed, would maneuver a path through the ice field. Quintillion has since determined that it will be practicable to wait for seasonal ice to retreat prior to travelling to Oliktok Point and avoid navigation through fields of broken ice. Ice management will only be done in the event of an unexpected safety concern. In an emergency, a tug may be used to push individual ice floes aside.
The Nature and Level of Proposed Take 2.2.3
The Quintillion project is most likely to encounter Pacific walruses in the Chukchi Sea in July, August, and September. The Beaufort Sea is outside of the normal range of the species and is considered “extralimital.” Encounters there are unlikely. Quintillion’s vessels are most likely to encounter polar bears in the southwestern Beaufort Sea in August and September, but could come upon them at any time throughout the project area.
12
Pacific walruses and polar bears could experience take by Level B harassment if they are disturbed by the presence of vessels and activities associated with the Quintillion cable project. Pacific walruses could also be disturbed by underwater sounds generated by propellers, thrusters, echo sounders, and beacon transceivers used by the cable-laying ships. Acoustic harassment may result in Level B take if Pacific walruses are exposed to sound levels exceeding 160 decibelsRMS (dB). All dB levels given herein are referenced to 1 µPa for underwater sound and are dBRMS unless otherwise noted; dBRMS refers to the root-mean-squared dB level, the square root of the average of the squared sound pressure level over some duration (typically 1 second). All sound source levels herein are as measured at 1 m (3 ft) from the source.
Quintillion is requesting incidental take by Level B harassment of 250 Pacific walruses and 20 polar bears from disruption of behavioral patterns and exposure to underwater sound levels exceeding 160 dB. Exposure to underwater sound pressure levels above 180 dB, or repeated or prolonged exposure above 160 dB, may result in temporary shifts in hearing thresholds (temporary threshold shifts or TTS), which we equate to Level B harassment under the MMPA. This is unlikely for most Pacific walruses, as they will normally retreat from loud noises before TTS occurs. However, the behavioral response of retreating from a sound may itself indicate that Level B harassment has occurred. The number of actual takes will depend on how the individual animals respond to the activities. Because of the potential for TTS and the possibility of behavioral responses to underwater noise, the number of takes from sound exposure will be estimated from the number of individuals occurring within a 160-dB “ensonification zone.” The ensonification zone is the area surrounding a sound source where received sound levels exceed the specified threshold. See section 4.2.1 for more information on Acoustic Thresholds (page 33) and Behavioral Responses of Pacific Walruses (page 36) to underwater sound.
Quintillion is not requesting authorization for take by Level A harassment because the project is not expected to cause injury. Quintillion estimates that the project will generate sound levels no greater than 188 dB. The Service has traditionally adopted a 190-dB threshold developed by the NMFS for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. The 190-dB injury threshold is an estimate of the sound level likely to cause a permanent shift in hearing threshold (permanent threshold shift; PTS). This value was modelled from TTS observed in marine mammals (NMFS 1998; HESS 1999). The NMFS has recently released new injury thresholds for non-impulsive sounds that incorporate frequency-weighted cumulative sound exposure levels (NMFS 2016). Quintillion is not expecting to generate sound levels above these new thresholds either.
Prior to issuing an IHA, the Service must evaluate the level of activities described in the application, the potential impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears, and the potential effects on the availability of these species for subsistence use. The Service is tasked with analyzing the impact that the proposed lawful activities will have during normal operating procedures.
Mitigation and Monitoring 2.2.4
Mitigation and monitoring measures were developed to minimize potential impacts to walruses and polar bears, their habitat, and subsistence use of these resources. Quintillion has developed a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan (4MP). Measures will be in place to avoid
13
interactions with Pacific walruses and polar bears wherever possible, especially in habitat areas of significance, such as areas used for feeding or resting. Adaptive measures, such as temporal or spatial limitations, will be applied in response to the presence of Pacific walruses and polar bears. Quintillion will also implement a plan of cooperation (POC) to facilitate coordination with subsistence users and to ensure subsistence harvest is not disrupted. Work will be scheduled to minimize activities in hunting areas during subsistence harvest periods.
Avoidance
Routing the cable to avoid concentration areas and important habitat will be the primary means of minimizing potential consequences for Pacific walruses, polar bears, and subsistence users. Most of the main trunk line is 30 to 150 km (19 – 93 mi) offshore, thereby avoiding nearshore Pacific walrus concentrations and terrestrial haulouts. No work will be done near Point Lay, where large haulouts are likely, or near the HSWUA, where Pacific walrus feeding aggregations may occur. The timing of activities allows the project to avoid impacts to polar bear dens.
Where cable end branches will come ashore, landings will be conducted at right angles to the coastline and immediately adjacent to the respective village (except at Oliktok Point where no village exists) to avoid Pacific walrus haulouts and minimize activities near barrier islands and coastal areas that provide habitat for polar bears that is free from disturbance.
The Proposed Action will not occur north of the Bering Strait until July 1, which will allow Pacific walruses the opportunity to disperse from the confines of the spring lead system and will minimize interactions with subsistence hunters. Quintillion’s O&M and cable-laying work must avoid sea ice for safety reasons. Quintillion has determined that it is practicable to wait for seasonal ice to retreat prior to travelling to Oliktok Point. Quintillion will avoid sea ice habitat to the greatest extent practicable. In doing so, Quintillion will avoid ice habitat used by Pacific walruses and polar bears. However, drifting ice could be encountered near Point Barrow or Oliktok Point. If necessary for the safety of the vessels and crews, Quintillion may use a tug to maneuver ice away from the vessels.
Vessels will be operated at slow speeds to avoid injuries and disturbances. Collisions between vessels and marine mammals are rare in waters of Alaska, and when they do occur, they usually involve fast-moving vessels. Observers will monitor for marine mammals and apply speed restrictions, alter course, or reduce sound production whenever possible when animals are present. Ships will not be able to alter course or speed to avoid marine mammals during cable laying, but this work will be conducted at slow speeds (0.6 km/hr [0.37 mi/h or 0.32 kn]) and constant sound production levels. This activity will provide ample warning, allowing Pacific walruses and polar bears to avoid the vessels before they are close enough to cause harm. In most cases, animals will also be able to retreat from the vessels without experiencing Level B take from either sound exposure or biologically significant behavioral responses.
Underwater sound levels will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable, for example by powering engines at the lowest possible level to complete work, and by choosing the smallest appropriate vessel where multiple options exist. This will help minimize impacts to walruses from underwater noise.
14
Vessel-Based Protected Species Observers
Quintillion has proposed to employ vessel-based protected species observers (PSOs) to watch for marine mammals, record their numbers, locations, distances, and reactions to the operations, and to implement appropriate adaptive measures. Observers will monitor whenever the project activities are expected to produce sound above 120 dB. This activity will include transit to and from work sites, ice management, pre-trenching, cable laying, and O&M work (including use of the ROV and placement of concrete mattresses). The vigilance of PSOs will help minimize encounters with Pacific walruses and polar bears when the possibility of encounters cannot be avoided outright. This oversight is especially important in habitat areas of significance, including the barrier islands and nearshore coastal habitats used by polar bears for refuge from disturbance, and among the marginal sea ice used by both species for hunting and foraging.
Observers will conduct monitoring during all cable-laying work throughout the work season. A sufficient number of trained PSOs will be required onboard each vessel to achieve 100 percent monitoring coverage of these periods with a maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch and a maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO. Nighttime observations will be made using night-vision equipment. Quintillion has determined that monitoring by PSOs is not feasible during use of the construction barge, the pontoon barge, or the small river tug due to the limited space aboard these vessels. Encounters with Pacific walruses are not a concern for these vessels because they will not operate in suitable habitat areas. However, polar bears may be present. The vessel crews will remain vigilant for polar bears and will implement all relevant measures specified in the 4MP if a polar bear is seen.
Observers will monitor all areas around project vessels to the outer radius of the 120-dB ensonification zone. Specific distances monitored will depend on the activity being conducted. Greater distances will be monitored during louder activities, including use of the sea plow and use of dynamic positioning thrusters. Monitoring zones will range from 1.7 to 5.4 km (1.0 – 3.4 mi) from the vessels.
Each vessel will have an experienced field crew leader to supervise the PSO team. Each team will consist of individuals with prior experience as marine mammal monitoring observers, including experience specific to Pacific walruses and polar bears. New or inexperienced PSOs will be paired with an experienced PSO so that the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording is kept consistent. Resumes for candidate PSOs will be made available for the Service to review. All observers will have completed a training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. The PSOs will be provided with Fujinon 7 × 50 or equivalent binoculars. Laser range finders (Leica LRF 1200 or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation. Night vision equipment will be available to assist with monitoring during periods of darkness.
All location, weather, and marine mammal observation data will be recorded onto a standard field form or database. Global positioning system and weather data will be collected at the beginning and end of a monitoring period and at every 30 minutes in between. Position data will also be recorded at the change of an observer or the sighting of a Pacific walrus or polar bear. Enough position data will be collected to map an accurate charting of vessel travel. Observations
15
of Pacific walruses and polar bears will also include group size and composition (adults/juveniles), behavior, distance from vessel, presence in any applicable ensonification zone, and any apparent reactions to the project activities. Data forms or database entries will be made available to the Service upon request.
Acoustic Monitoring
Observers will monitor the 120-dB ensonification zone for the presence of approaching polar bears or walruses and the 160-dB zone for animals that may be exposed to high levels of sound1. The radii of the zones will depend on the activity being conducted. Due to uncertainty in the sound source levels, sound produced by the anchor-handling tug and vibro plow will be tested to determine the appropriate size of the ensonification zone. Observers will record the distance to the animal upon initial observation, the duration of the encounter, and the distance at last observation in order to monitor cumulative sound exposures. Observers will note any instances of animals lingering close to or traveling with vessels for prolonged periods of time.
Adaptive Measures
Quintillion’s operators shall work with PSOs to apply adaptive measures as specified herein, and shall recognize the authority of PSOs, up to and including stopping work, except where doing so poses a significant safety risk to vessels and personnel.
When the cable ships are traveling in Alaskan waters to and from the project area (before and after completion of cable laying and O&M work), and during all travel by support vessels, operators will follow these measures:
• Avoid potential interactions with any and all Pacific walruses and polar bears by reducing speed to less than 9.4 km/h (5.8 mi/h or 5 kn), altering course, or reducing sound production when animals are observed within 0.8 km (0.5 mi). Achieve changes in speed or course gradually to avoid abrupt maneuvers whenever possible.
• Do not approach Pacific walruses or polar bears within 0.8 km (0.5 mi). • Reduce speed to 9.4 km/h (5.8 mi/h or 5 kn) or less when visibility drops (such as
during inclement weather, rough seas, or at night) to allow marine mammals to avoid vessels (during cable laying, normal speed is less than 9.4 km/h [5.8 mi/h or 5 kn]).
• Avoid the sea ice habitat of Pacific walruses or polar bears to the greatest extent practicable.
1 The Service considers take by Level B harassment to occur whenever Pacific walruses are exposed to sound levels of 160 dB or greater or when polar bears or walruses exhibit biologically significant changes in behavior indicating harassment (e.g., disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering). Quintillion has committed to monitoring the 120-dB and 160-dB isopleth and reporting the behaviors of all Pacific walruses and polar bears therein. We expect Quintillion to report all observations within the 160-dB zone and any Pacific walruses or polar bears exhibiting a behavioral response indicating harassment by project activities, regardless of location. The Service will review observation reports and make final determinations regarding take.
16
• Do not operate vessels in such a way as to separate members of a group of Pacific walruses or polar bears from other members of the group.
• Maintain a 1.6-km (1-mi) separation distance from Pacific walruses on land. • Report any behavioral response indicating more than Level B take due to project
activities to the Service immediately, but not later than 48 hours after the incident. Such responses include separation of mother from young, stampeding haulouts, injured animals, and animals in acute distress.
Measures to Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users
Holders of an IHA must cooperate with the Service and other designated Federal, state, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of proposed activities on marine mammals and subsistence users. Quintillion has coordinated with the Service, NMFS, and the Army Corps of Engineers, along with communities and subsistence harvest organizations. Specifically, Quintillion has coordinated with EWC, Utqiagvik Whaling Captains Association members and board, the Community of Wainwright, Wainwright Whaling Captains, Point Hope Community, Tikigaq Whaling Captains, the Northwest Arctic Borough, Kotzebue City Management, the Community of Kotzebue, Maniilaq Association, Kawerak Inc., the Nome Community, and Kuukpik Corporation. At the discretion of the Service, all operators will allow Service personnel, or the Service’s designated representative, to board project vessels or visit project work sites for the purpose of monitoring impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears and subsistence uses of those species at any time throughout project activities.
Communications will continue throughout the project through public service announcements on KBRW and KOTZ radio stations, messaging on the Alaska Rural Communications Service television network, local newspapers, and 1–800 comment lines. At the end of the work season Quintillion will conduct community meetings at the affected villages to discuss and summarize project completion. In coordination with these agencies and organizations, Quintillion has agreed to the following actions to minimize effects on subsistence harvest by Alaska Natives:
• Schedule cable-laying operations to avoid conflict with subsistence harvest. • Where faults are found, schedule O&M work around local subsistence activity. • Plan routes in offshore waters away from nearshore subsistence harvest areas. • Develop and implement a POC to coordinate communication. • Participate in the Automatic Identification System for vessel tracking to allow the
cable-laying fleet to be located in real time. • Monitor local marine radio channels for communication with local vessel traffic. • Distribute a daily report by email to all interested parties. Daily reports will include
vessel activity, location, subsistence/local information, and any potential hazards.
Reporting Requirements
Holders of an IHA must keep the Service informed of the impacts of authorized activities on marine mammals by: (1) notifying the Service at least 48 hours prior to commencement of activities; (2) reporting any occurrence of injury or mortality due to project activities
17
immediately but not later than 48 hours after the incident; (3) submitting project reports; and (4) notifying the Service upon project completion or at the end of the work season.
Weekly reports will be submitted to the Service each Thursday during the weeks that cable-laying activities take place. The reports will summarize project activities, monitoring efforts conducted by PSOs, numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears detected, the number of Pacific walruses exposed to sound levels greater than 160 dB, and all behavioral reactions of Pacific walruses and polar bears to project activities.
A technical report will be submitted to the Service within 90 days after the end of the project or the end of the open-water season, whichever comes first. The report will describe all monitoring conducted during Quintillion’s activities and provide results. The report will include:
• Summary of monitoring effort (total hours of monitoring, activities monitored, number of PSOs).
• Summary of project activities completed and additional work yet to be done. • Analyses of the factors influencing visibility and detectability of marine mammals
(e.g., sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare). • Discussion of location, weather, ice cover, sea state, and other factors affecting the
presence and distribution of Pacific walruses and polar bears. • Number, location, distance/direction from the vessel, and initial behavior of any
sighted Pacific walruses and polar bears upon detection. • Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, and sea conditions (including sea
state and wind force), as well as description of the specific cable-laying activity occurring at the time of the observation.
• Estimated distance at closest approach and at the end of the encounter. • Duration of encounter. • An estimate of the number of Pacific walruses that have been exposed to noise (based
on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB with a description of the responses (changes in behavior).
• Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the sampling method and data available.
• A description of the mitigation measures implemented during project activities and their effectiveness for minimizing the effects of the Proposed Action on Pacific walruses and polar bears.
• An analysis of the effects of operations on Pacific walruses and polar bears. • Occurrence, distribution, and composition of sightings, including date, water depth,
numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, visibility, location of the vessel, and location of the animal (or distance and direction to the animal from the vessel) in the form of electronic database or spreadsheet files.
• A discussion of any specific behaviors of interest.
18
• An assessment of the effectiveness of the POC for preventing impacts to subsistence users of polar bears and walruses, including summaries of post-season meetings held with the cable-landing communities.
Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unexpected event that the specified activity causes the take of a Pacific walrus or polar bear in a manner not authorized by the IHA, including but not limited to stampeding of haulouts, abandonment of young, animals in acute distress, injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike), Quintillion must report the incident to the Service immediately but no later than 48 hours after the incident. Quintillion must also cease project activities (or reduce activities to the minimum level necessary to maintain safety) until the Service has reviewed the circumstances of the prohibited take and determined whether additional mitigation measures are necessary to avoid further taking. Quintillion will not resume cable-laying activities until approved to do so by the Service; continuation of cable-laying activities without Service approval will invalidate the IHA. The incident report will include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident; • Name and type of vessel involved; • Vessel’s speed during and leading up to the incident; • Description of the incident; • Description of all sound sources used in the 24 hours preceding the incident; • Water depth; • Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, cloud cover, and visibility); • Description of all Pacific walrus and polar bear observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident; • Description of the animal(s) involved; • Fate of the animal(s); and • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
In the event that Quintillion discovers an injured or dead Pacific walrus or polar bear, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with the specified activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Quintillion will report the discovery to the Service within 48 hours. Quintillion will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation to the Service.
2.3 Alternatives Considered Not Feasible or Practicable
The Service considered whether issuance of an IHA with mitigation measures other than those specified in the preferred alternative would meet the stated purpose and need. A range of alternative mitigation measures were considered, but ultimately eliminated as either not feasible, not practicable, not likely to be implemented effectively, or no more likely to be successful in reducing the impacts of Quintillion’s project than those selected in the preferred alternative. Some alternative mitigation measures are briefly described here.
19
• The use of shutdown radii. Many projects will shut down immediately if a marine mammal approaches close enough for take to occur, particularly if Level A take (injury) is a concern. Due to the nature of underwater cable-laying activities, the cable ship will not be able to shut down, change speed, or change direction during cable-laying operations. Other project vessels will slow and reduce underwater sound production levels in the presence of marine mammals. Quintillion’s activities are not likely to cause injury. Reductions in speed and sound during activities that are already relatively slow and quiet are likely to provide a suitable level of protection. Immediate shutdowns are not expected to offer substantially greater protection for walruses and polar bears.
• The use of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). Quintillion provided support for PAM work in 2016. Acoustic monitoring data provides information on the distribution and composition of the marine mammal community and the acoustic effects of the cable-laying activity on the local environment. The collection of such data is fundamental for understanding the effects of such activities on marine mammals. Quintillion has determined that additional PAM data collection is not practicable. The Service encourages the collection of PAM data, but we expect that the mitigation methods will be effective for reducing the level and amount of take and therefore will not require PAM data collection as additional mitigation for the specified activities.
• Use of a 120-db threshold. A 120-dB underwater sound exposure threshold for non-impulsive noise has been adopted by NOAA for pinnipeds. Since the development of these thresholds in the late 1990s, the understanding of the effects of noise on marine mammal hearing has advanced. While NOAA has recently finalized guidance for avoidance of injury, no new guidance is available for avoidance of acoustic harassment. In the meantime, NOAA continues to use the generic thresholds as interim guidance (NOAA undated). In the IHA, we examined the current information to determine the appropriate acoustic threshold levels for walruses exposed to noise from the Quintillion project. We determined that the available information indicates that Pacific walruses are not likely to be taken by harassment from continuous noise produced by Quintillion’s vessels at the 120-dB level. [Top]
Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Physical Environment
Our Proposed Action and alternatives relate only to the authorization of incidental take of Pacific walruses and polar bears and not to the physical environment. Certain aspects of the physical environment are relevant to our Proposed Action, and we briefly summarize them here.
Climate and Ecological Conditions 3.1.1
The regional conditions of Alaska’s northern oceans are dominated by ocean currents and the seasonal expansion and retraction of sea ice. The Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas are
20
integrally connected, but each has unique oceanographic features. The Bering Sea is one of several biologically productive subarctic seas and is influenced by both the Arctic and the North Pacific Ocean. The Bering Sea is home to large bird and marine mammal populations. Alaskan Bering Sea fisheries generate half of the marine harvest in U.S. waters. The topography of the Bering Sea is dominated by a deep ocean basin to the south and west, and a large continental shelf to the north and east. The continental shelf is shallow—mostly less than 50 m (160 ft) deep—and continues through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea to the north. Waters from the North Pacific Ocean flow northward over the continental shelf, through the Bering Strait, over the Chukchi Sea Shelf, and into the Arctic Ocean (Figure 2). These currents carry nutrient-rich waters that fuel high planktonic and benthic productivity and support the abundant sea life for which the northern seas of Alaska are known.
Figure 2. Bathymetric map of the Chukchi Sea and surrounding area with geographical place names and ocean currents (modified from Gong and Pickart 2015). [Top]
North of the Bering Strait lies the Chukchi Sea. During the winter, the extent of the sea ice reaches into, but does not cover the Bering Sea, while much of the Chukchi Sea is normally ice-covered. Extensive yearly sea-ice cover imposes light limitation, prolonged and strong vertical stability of the water column, and low nutrient supply. Much of the biological productivity in the Chukchi Sea is carried in from the Bering Sea, but in recent years, massive algal blooms have been documented beneath the sea ice (Frey et al. 2012). In summer, ice retreats to the northern Chukchi Sea, or in low ice years, the Arctic Ocean.
21
The Beaufort Sea lies off the northern coast of Alaska. Most of the Beaufort Sea is greater than 1,000 m deep. It is characterized by its severe climate. Historically, only a narrow band of up to 100 km (62 mi) of open water occurred along the northern Alaskan coast in late summer. The Beaufort sea hosts about 80 species of zooplankton, more than 70 species of phytoplankton, and nearly 700 species of polychaetes, bryozoans, crustaceans and mollusks, but their total volume is relatively small due to the cold climate and low primary productivity (Parsons and Lear 1993).
Sea Ice Characteristics 3.1.2
Sea ice in the region of the cable-laying project can be characterized by its seasonal variation:
• Summer (open water). The open water season usually begins in June. The shore-fast ice melts and the pack ice recedes northward, resulting in open water in the Chukchi Sea and along the Beaufort Sea coast. By mid-July, much of the lagoon and open-shelf areas are ice-free. The extent of open water reaches its fullest extent in August or September. The edge of the pack ice in September historically ranged from about 19 to 106 km (12 ̶ 66 mi) offshore from the Beaufort Sea coast (Labelle et al. 1983). Summer sea-ice has retreated much farther in recent years and models predict the Arctic may be nearly ice-free by mid-century or sooner (Overland and Wang 2013).
• Broken ice. The broken ice period is when the sea transitions from ice-covered to open water (break up) and from open water to ice-covered (freeze up). These periods usually occur in June and October, respectively.
• Winter (ice-covered). Winter conditions begin with freeze up and an increase in sea-ice. From November through May, ice covers nearly all of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The ice reaches a maximum thickness of approximately 2 m (6 ft) by March or April. Winter sea ice can be divided into three zones: landfast, shear, and pack ice.
o Landfast ice. The landfast ice zone extends from the shore out to the zone of grounded ridges. These ridges first form in about 7 to 13 m (24 – 45 ft) of water but by late winter may extend to deeper water. Pressure from wind and water currents stress floating sheets of ice resulting in deformation and displacement. Ice deformations form ridges and rubble fields. As winter progresses, displacement and deformation decrease because the ice in the landfast zone thickens and strengthens and becomes more resistant to movement.
o Shear. Seaward of the landfast ice zone is the shear zone. The shear zone is a region of dynamic interaction between landfast ice and moving ice. The violent interactions between ice zones create ridges. These ridges are usually 1 to 2 m (3 – 6 ft) in height, but may reach heights of 6 m (20 ft). Channels of open water (leads) are created through the ice, providing habitat for marine mammals.
o Pack ice. The pack ice zone lies seaward of the shear zone and includes first-year ice and multiyear ice. The first-year ice forms in the fractures, leads, and polynyas (large areas of open water). First-year ice varies in thickness from less
22
than 2 cm to greater than a meter (1 in – 3.2 ft). Multiyear ice is ice that has persisted for more than 1 year.
Climate Change 3.1.3
There is widespread consensus within the scientific community that atmospheric temperatures on earth are increasing and that these increases will continue for at least the next several decades. Scientific analyses presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and is “extremely likely” (defined by the IPCC as 95 percent or higher probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere resulting from human activities, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2014a). The IPCC released its Fifth Assessment Report providing extensive updates on the evolving science of climate change, including in the Arctic (IPCC 2014a). Among other things, the IPCC estimates that global net warming will occur into the future as the mean surface temperature increases up to 3.7° F (1.5° C) by the year 2100 (IPCC 2013).
High latitude regions, including Alaska and the surrounding oceans, are especially sensitive to the effects of climate change (Smol et al. 2005; Schindler and Smol 2006). Researchers have projected that surface temperatures in the Arctic will increase faster than elsewhere in the world due to major regional and global feedback processes. This phenomenon has been termed “Arctic Amplification.” One factor contributing to this momentum is reduction in surface albedo (reflectivity) of the Arctic region in the summer from lower sea ice and snow cover, and from retraction of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet (Jeffries et al. 2014). According to the USGS, the observed changes in sea-ice extent, the timing of spring snowmelt, changes in permafrost, increases in area of forest fires, and increases in ocean temperatures are occurring faster than expected due to this phenomenon (Markon et al. 2012).
The Arctic’s rapid rate of warming has resulted in substantial reductions in both the extent and thickness of sea-ice cover over the past 40 years (IPCC 2014a, Meier et al. 2014, Frey et al. 2015; Figure 3). The annual mean extent of Arctic sea ice has decreased 3.5 to 4.1 percent per decade over the period 1979 to 2012, and the minimum extent has declined by over 12 percent per decade during that time frame (IPCC 2014a). In 2017, the yearly maximum was the lowest on record for the third straight year (NSIDC 2017). The overall trend of continued decline of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue (Stroeve et al. 2007; Amstrup et al. 2008; Hunter et al. 2010, Overland and Wang 2013).
In the Arctic, sea ice is receding earlier in the summer season and farther north than in the past. Sea ice returns later in the season than observed in the past, with multiyear ice becoming thinner as well. This set of circumstances in the Chukchi Sea leads to a longer open-water season and an increase in the frequency of low ice years, during which the sea ice retreats beyond the Chukchi Sea continental shelf. Record minimum and near-record minimum extent of sea ice has been documented several times in recent years. Continued decline of sea ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas is supported by the most recent climate models (Douglas 2010; IPCC 2014b).
23
Climate projections for the North Slope of Alaska vary, particularly when extended decades into the future. However, average summer and winter temperatures are generally expected to increase, shifts are expected to occur in patterns of precipitation, snowfall, and snowmelt. River levels may rise, flooding events increase, and the annual period of frozen ground is likely to decrease (Clement et al. 2013). The impacts of climate change are discussed under section 3.2 Biological Environment, as well as under section 4.2.5 Cumulative Impacts. For additional information regarding climate change in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, see BOEM (2015) section 3.1.9 (Climate Change), and Garlich-Miller et al. (2011) section 3.2.1 (Global Climate Change), incorporated by reference.
Figure 3. Average monthly Arctic sea ice extent February 1979 – 2016 (NSIDC 2016). [Top]
3.2 Biological Environment
Pacific walrus 3.2.1
The stock of Pacific walruses is composed of a single population inhabiting the shallow continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi seas (Lingqvist et al. 2009; Berta and Churchill 2012; Figure 4). The size of the stock has never been known with certainty. In 2006, the U.S. and Russian Federation (Russia) conducted a joint aerial survey in the pack ice of the Bering Sea using thermal imaging systems and satellite transmitters to count Pacific walruses in the water and hauled out on sea ice. The number within the surveyed area was estimated at 129,000 with a 95 percent confidence interval (CI) of 55,000 to 507,000 individuals. This estimate is considered a minimum; weather conditions forced termination of the survey before large areas were surveyed (Speckman et al. 2011).
24
Figure 4. Distribution of the Pacific walrus in the Bering and Chukchi seas in winter and summer. From Garlich-Miller et al. (2011), modified from Smith (2010). [Top] Distribution is largely influenced by the extent of the seasonal pack ice and prey densities. From April to June, most of the population migrates from the Bering Sea through the Bering Strait and into the Chukchi Sea. Pacific walruses tend to migrate into the Chukchi Sea along lead systems that develop in the sea ice. During the open-water season, Pacific walruses are closely associated with the edge of the seasonal pack ice from Russian waters to areas west of Point Barrow, Alaska. Most of these animals remain in the Chukchi Sea throughout the summer months, but a few occasionally range into the Beaufort Sea. Oil and gas industry observers reported 35 sightings east of Point Barrow (156.5° W.) from 1995 to 2012 (Kalxdorff and Bridges 2003; AES Alaska 2015; USFWS unpublished data).
Pacific walruses are usually found in waters of 100 m (328 ft) or less although they are capable of diving to greater depths. They use sea ice as a resting platform over feeding areas, as well as for giving birth, nursing, passive transportation, and avoiding predators (Fay 1982; Ray et al. 2006). Benthic invertebrates are the primary food source, but native hunters have reported incidences of walruses preying on seals, and other items such as fish and birds are occasionally taken (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009; Seymour et al. 2014). Foraging trips may last for several
25
days, during which the animals dive to the bottom nearly continuously. Most foraging dives last 5 to 10 minutes, with surface intervals of 1 to 2 minutes. The disturbance of the sea floor by foraging walruses releases nutrients into the water column, provides food for scavenger organisms, contributes to the diversity of the benthic community, and is thought to have a significant influence on the ecology of the Bering and Chukchi seas (Ray et al. 2006). Bivalve clams of the genera Macoma, Serripes, and Mya appear to be the most important prey based on both stomach contents and prey availability at Pacific walrus feeding areas (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009).
Hanna Shoal is the most important foraging area known for Pacific walruses (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991; MacCracken 2012; Jay et al. 2012). The unique bathymetric and current patterns at Hanna Shoal deposit nutrients from the Bering Sea on the ocean floor where they feed a rich benthic ecosystem. Jay et al. (2012) tracked radio-tagged walruses to estimate areas of foraging and occupancy in the Chukchi Sea from June to November of 2008 to 2011 (years when sea ice was sparse over the continental shelf) and observed high use areas in the relatively shallow waters of Hanna Shoal. Based on this information, the Service designated 24,600 km2 (9,500 mi2) of the Chukchi Sea as the Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area (HSWUA; see Figure 5).
Pacific walruses are gregarious animals. They travel and haul out onto ice or land in groups, and spend approximately 20−30 percent of their time out of the water. Hauled-out animals tend to be in close physical contact. Young animals often lie on top of adults. The size of the hauled-out groups can range from a few animals to several thousand individuals. The largest aggregations occur at land haulouts. Use of terrestrial haulouts in the eastern Chukchi Sea by large numbers has been common during recent years of low summer sea ice. At these times, the edge of the pack ice moves north into the Arctic Basin where the water depth is too great for Pacific walruses to feed. In recent years, the barrier islands north of Point Lay have held large aggregations of up to 20,000−40,000 animals in late summer and fall (Monson et al. 2013). Pacific walruses hauled out near Point Lay have travelled to Hanna Shoal during feeding bouts.
The pack ice usually advances rapidly southward in late fall, and most Pacific walruses return with it, arriving in the Bering Sea by mid- to late-November. During the winter breeding season, concentration areas form in the Bering Sea where open leads, polynyas, or thin ice occur (Fay et al. 1984; Garlich-Miller et al. 2011).
The reduction of summer Arctic sea ice may have population-level effects for Pacific walruses in the future (80 FR 80595, December 24, 2015). Possible impacts to Pacific walruses resulting from diminishing sea ice include shifts in range and habitat use, changes in local abundance, and increased use of terrestrial haulouts, particularly by females and young animals. Changes in sea-ice availability will likely reduce the population carrying capacity due to changes in habitat availability and benthic productivity, but the overall response of the Pacific walrus to climate change remains uncertain (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011; Charapata 2016). Detailed information on the biology and status of the species is available at http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/.
26
Figure 5. Utilization distribution estimates (UDs) of Pacific walrus foraging (red to blue color ramp contours, 10 – 95 percent UDs) and occupancy (solid line contours, 50 and 95 percent UDs) in the Chukchi Sea, 2008 - 2011 (Jay et al. 2012). [Top]
Polar Bears 3.2.2
Polar bears are distributed throughout the circumpolar Arctic region. The total world population is estimated to be 26,000 (95 percent CI = 22,000 – 31,000; Wiig et al. 2015), divided among nineteen subpopulations or stocks. In Alaska, polar bears have historically been observed as far south in the Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island and the Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971). Two subpopulations, or stocks, occur in Alaska, the Chukchi Sea (CS) stock and the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) stock. An extensive area of overlap between the CS and SBS stocks occurs between Point Barrow and Point Hope (Amstrup et al. 2004; Obbard et al. 2010; Wiig et al. 2015). Polar bears in this area may be from either stock (Amstrup et al. 2004). A detailed description of the CS and SBS stocks can be found in USFWS (2010a, b).
The SBS stock is shared with Canada and had an estimated size of approximately 900 bears in 2010 (90 percent CI = 606 – 1212; Bromaghin et al. 2015). This represents a 25 to 50 percent reduction from previous estimates of approximately 1,800 in 1986 (Amstrup et al. 1986), and 1,526 in 2006 (Regehr et al. 2006). Analyses of over 20 years of data on the size and body condition of bears in this subpopulation demonstrated declines for most sex and age classes (Rode et al. 2010a). Declines in body condition have occurred concurrently with reductions in annual sea-ice availability (Rode et al. 2010a, 2012). Reductions in summer sea-ice extent may
27
be associated with low prey abundance or limited access to prey (Bromaghin et al. 2015). These lines of evidence suggest that the SBS stock is currently declining due to sea-ice loss.
The CS stock is shared with Russia. The most recent abundance estimate, based on expert opinion and extrapolation of denning surveys on Wrangel Island in Russia, was 2,000 bears in 2002 (PBSG 2002). The current status and trend of the CS stock are unknown due to a lack of data. While the SBS stock has shown reduced condition and survival concurrent with reductions in sea ice, a comparison of data from 1986 to 1994 with data from 2008 to 2011 indicated polar bears from the CS maintained similar body condition and productivity (e.g., number of yearlings per female) between those periods, despite declines in sea ice (Rode et al. 2014).
Polar bears depend on sea ice for a number of purposes, including as a platform from which to hunt and feed. Polar bears are typically most abundant near the ice edges or openings in the ice over relatively shallow continental shelf waters with high marine productivity (Durner et al. 2004). Their primary prey is ringed (Pusa hispida) and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), although diet varies regionally with prey availability (Thiemann et al. 2008, Cherry et al. 2011). Typically, polar bears remain on the ice throughout the year or spend only short periods on land, where they will opportunistically scavenge or feed on beached marine mammal carcasses (Kalxdorff and Fischbach 1998). Remains of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) made available following subsistence harvest by Alaska Native communities are important food sources for some polar bears, and may comprise up to 70 percent of the fall diet (Rogers et al. 2015). Although polar bears have been observed using terrestrial foods such as blueberries (Vaccinium sp.), snow geese (Anser caerulescens), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus), prolonged consumption of terrestrial foods are associated with declines in body condition and survival (Rode et al. 2015a). These alternate foods cannot replace the energy-dense diet polar bears obtain from marine mammals (e.g., Derocher et al. 2004; Rode et al. 2010b; Smith et al. 2010b).
Seasonal polar bear distribution and movement patterns are linked to changes in sea-ice habitat; future patterns may differ from those of the past (Durner et al. 2007; Rode et al. 2014; Wilson et al. 2016). Historically, in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea areas, less than 10 percent of the polar bear locations obtained via radio telemetry were on land (Amstrup 2000; Amstrup, U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished data). However, in recent years, the proportion of time spent on land and the number of bears using the coastal areas has increased, particularly during the summer and fall (Schliebe et al. 2008, Rode et al. 2015b, Atwood et al. 2016b). This is most likely due to the retreat of the sea ice beyond the continental shelf and the associated increase in open water during the summer and early fall (Zhang and Walsh 2006; Serreze et al. 2007; Stroeve et al. 2007). Once sea-ice concentration drops below 50 percent, polar bears have been documented to abandon sea ice for land. Alternately, bears may retreat northward with the consolidated pack ice over the deep water of the polar basin. In both instances, polar bears are likely to find limited prey and may reduce their activity levels and lower body temperatures to save energy (Whiteman et al. 2015, Ware et al. 2017).
Diminished sea ice cover also increases the areas of open water across which polar bears must swim to reach land or remaining sea ice. As areas of unconsolidated ice increase and movement patterns of sea ice change, some bears are also likely to lose contact with the main body of ice. These bears may be more likely to drift into unsuitable habitat and attempt to swim long
28
distances to return (Sahanatien and Derocher 2012). Researchers have observed that in some cases, bears that swim long distances during the open-water period may become vulnerable to exhaustion (Durner et al. 2011; Pagano et al. 2012).
Climate change may also affect the movement patterns and reproductive success of polar bears. Pregnant females will seek out den sites on land or in multiyear sea ice where accumulation of snow is sufficient for construction of a well-insulated den. Pregnant females usually enter maternity dens by late November and emerge with cubs in late March or April. Pregnant females are the only polar bears that den for an extended period during the winter; others may excavate temporary dens to escape harsh winter winds. In Alaska, denning habitat is frequently located on barrier islands, riverbank drainages, and coastal bluffs. For a pregnant polar bear to reach denning areas on land, pack ice must drift close enough or must freeze sufficiently early to allow her to walk or swim to shore in the fall (Derocher et al. 2004). Distance to the ice edge is already thought to be a factor limiting denning on the coast of western Alaska by bears from the CS stock (Rode et al. 2015b). In recent years, fewer dens have been found on pack ice, suggesting that these changes may be making pack ice less suitable for maternal denning (Fischbach et al. 2007; Rode et al. 2015b). Climate projections indicate continued loss of multiyear ice in summer and the possibility of total loss of summer sea ice (Holland et al. 2006). These conditions may further limit or eliminate maternity denning on pack ice (Stirling and Derocher 2012).
Climate change in the Arctic, driven by increasing atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, is the primary threat to polar bears, and is expected to impact polar bears in a variety of ways. These impacts include reduced sea ice and a related decrease in prey and hunting habitat (Atwood et al. 2015). Reductions in sea ice are expected to increase the polar bears’ energetic costs of traveling, since moving through fragmented sea-ice and swimming in open water requires more energy than walking across consolidated sea ice (Cherry et al. 2009, Pagano et al. 2012, Rode et al. 2014). Bromaghin et al. 2015, linked declines in summer sea ice to reduced physical condition, growth, and survival of polar bears. Projections indicate continued climate warming through the end of this century and beyond (IPCC 2014).
The Service recently completed a status review for the polar bear (USFWS 2017b). It summarizes new information that continues to support the polar bears’ heavy reliance on sea ice for essential life functions and the contribution of increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases to Arctic warming and loss of sea ice habitat. The long-term consequences for polar bears are uncertain, but under unabated greenhouse gas emissions, demographic models project a high probability of population decline throughout the Arctic (Atwood et al. 2015). The Service also recently issued a Polar Bear Conservation Management Plan that highlights the need to take global action to address climate change and describes management measures that can be taken to ensure polar bears are in a position to recover once the necessary global actions are taken (USFWS 2016).
29
3.3 Socio-Economic Environment
Subsistence harvest of Pacific walruses and polar bears by Alaska Natives plays an important role in the culture and economy of villages throughout coastal Alaska. Walrus meat is a subsistence food. Polar bear fur and walrus ivory are used to manufacture traditional arts and crafts. The sale of handicrafts provides income in some remote Alaska Native communities. The limited cash that Alaska Native villagers can make from handicrafts is vital to sustain their subsistence hunting and fishing way of life (Pungowiyi 2000). Although walrus and polar bear harvests are part of the subsistence traditions of many rural communities along the coast of the Beaufort, Chukchi and Bering seas, bowhead whales, seals, caribou, and fish are the dominant subsistence food sources.
The proposed cable-laying activities will occur within the marine subsistence areas used by Alaska Natives from the villages of Nome, Wales, Diomede, Kotzebue, Kivalina, Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Utqiagvik, and Nuiqsut. Between 1989 and 2016, approximately 3,126 Pacific walruses were harvested annually in Alaska. The years 2013 to 2016 were low harvest years with an average of 1,433 walruses per year. Lower harvest in recent years may be related to changes in sea ice dynamics (Ray et al. 2016) and have resulted in the State of Alaska declaring economic disasters in 2013 and 2015 for communities on St. Lawrence Island. Statewide harvest estimates are adjusted for underreporting and for animals that are struck and lost.
Most of the walrus harvest (85 percent) was by the villages of Gambell and Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island, located 135 km (84 mi) south of the geographic region of the Quintillion cable project. Relative to the village population size (556), Pacific walruses are also an important staple for the community of Wainwright where approximately 27 walruses were taken annually from 2007 to 2016. The small village of Diomede (population of approximately 115) harvested 21 walruses per year during that period. The villages of Point Hope (population around 699) and Wales (population 145), both harvested an average of 5 or 6 walruses each year. Nome also harvested 9 walruses per year, and Utqiagvik harvested 15 walruses per year from 2007 to 2016. Nome and Utqiagvik both have populations of approximately 4,000 people, and walrus is not as important in the subsistence diet as other resources. Estimates of harvest by village have not been corrected for struck and lost animals or underreporting.
The total harvest of polar bears reported by Alaskan Native hunters from 1990 through 2016 was 1,683 bears. Harvest levels varied considerably during this period, ranging from 16 to 107 polar bears, but the average was 63 bears per year. Harvest rates are declining by about 3 percent per year, and the average annual harvest from 2007 through 2016 was closer to 43 polar bears. Within the project area, the villages of Utqiagvik, Nome, Point Hope, Point Lay, Kivalina, Kotzebue, Nuiqsut, Shishmaref, Wainwright, and Wales regularly harvested polar bears. Of these, Utqiagvik, Point Hope, and Wainwright harvested the greatest numbers, averaging 10, 12, and 5 polar bears per year, respectively, during 2007 through 2016. No project work will occur near St. Lawrence Island and Little Diomede Island, but project vessels may pass nearby. Diomede, Savoonga, and Gambell each harvested two to three polar bears per year from 2007 through 2016. [Top]
30
Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The impacts of Federal actions must be evaluated to determine whether the action will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In this section, an analysis of the environmental consequences of issuing an IHA for take of Pacific walruses and polar bears by harassment, and alternatives to the Proposed Action are presented.
4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no IHA issued under the MMPA for incidental non-lethal take of Pacific walruses or polar bears as a result of otherwise lawful cable-laying activities in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas for work in summer and fall, 2017. There would be no associated monitoring, reporting, and mitigation requirements. Takings that result from Quintillion’s activities, unless otherwise authorized by sections 101(a)(4)(A), 109(h) or 112(c) of the MMPA, or qualifying for an exemption, would be subject to the prohibitions found in the MMPA. Violations of the MMPA could result in enforcement actions.
The No Action Alternative would not prohibit Quintillion’s activities. Other Federal and state agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Communications Commission, and the State of Alaska are responsible for permitting cable installation activities on waters and lands within the specified region. If an IHA were not issued, cable-laying activities may occur without the mitigation measures, monitoring, and reporting required by the IHA.
4.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) – Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization with Mitigation Measures and Additional Requirements
Under this alternative, the Service would issue an IHA for the period July 13 – November 15, 2017, that would authorize take from the proposed cable-laying project outlined in the application if such take will have no more than a negligible impact on small numbers of animals. In addition, the analysis must find that take will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species for subsistence purposes. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that the Secretary of the Interior may allow the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals, provided that these findings are made and permissible methods of taking and means of effecting the least practicable impact are specified, where applicable.
Under this alternative, the measures described in section 2.2.4 Mitigation and Monitoring, would be implemented to minimize potential adverse impacts from the cable-laying activities, as well as provide data to improve our ability to evaluate the effects on Pacific walruses and polar bears and the subsistence use of these resources. The specific IHA will be conditioned to afford additional protection to habitat areas of significance, such as areas used by feeding or resting animals and subsistence hunting areas.
31
Potential Impacts on the Biological Environment 4.2.1
The only components of the biological environment that may be affected by the Proposed Action are the Pacific walrus and polar bear populations in the northern Bering, Chukchi, and southwestern Beaufort seas. Quintillion’s vessels are most likely to encounter Pacific walruses in the Chukchi and Bering seas. The Beaufort Sea east of 153° W. is extralimital; encounters with walruses are unlikely there. Polar bears from either the SBS or CS stock could be present at any time throughout the project area, including at sea. Quintillion’s vessels will most likely encounter polar bears among sea ice near Point Barrow or Oliktok Point in July or along the coast of the southwestern Beaufort Sea in August and September.
Acoustic Impacts
Pacific walruses and polar bears may be exposed to noise from Quintillion’s activities. Exposure to high levels of sound at close range may cause hearing loss or mask communications; exposure to lower levels or at greater distances can cause behavioral disturbances.
Pacific walruses hear sounds both in air and in water. Kastelein et al. (1996) tested the in-air hearing of one individual in the frequency range from 125 hertz (Hz) to 8 kilohertz (kHz) and determined the animal could hear all frequencies tested, but the best sensitivity was 250 Hz to 2 kHz. Kastelein et al. (2002) tested underwater hearing and determined that range of hearing was 1 kHz to 12 kHz with greatest sensitivity at 12 kHz. The small sample size of one animal warrants caution; other pinnipeds can hear up to 40 kHz.
There is limited information on the hearing abilities of polar bears. Nachtigall et al. (2007) tested airborne auditory response to stimuli from electrodes placed on the scalp of three captive polar bears. Testing was limited to frequencies ranging from 1 to 22.5 kHz; responses were detected at all frequencies greater than 1.4 kHz. Greatest sensitivity was detected in the range from 11.2 to 22.5 kHz. Absolute thresholds were less than 27 to 30 dB. Nachtigall et al. (2007) did not test the full frequency range of polar bear hearing. However, low frequency vocalizations are produced by polar bears and low frequency seal calls have been detected by polar bears in air (Cushing et al. 1988). These results indicate that polar bears have acute hearing abilities and can hear a wider range of frequencies than humans (which are limited to about 20 kHz).
Airborne sound may cause disturbances among either polar bears or walruses, but neither species is likely to be harmed by the low intensity airborne sound generated by Quintillion’s work. Airborne noise from cable laying will not reach extremely high levels, and sound attenuates in air more rapidly than in water. Masking of communication, while possible, is less likely to occur from exposure to lower levels of airborne sound than higher levels of underwater sound.
Underwater noise by itself is unlikely to disturb polar bears. Polar bears generally do not dive far or for long below the surface and they normally swim with their heads at or above the water’s surface where turbulence accelerates attenuation and renders underwater noise weak or undetectable. Masking of polar bear communications by underwater sound is unlikely; polar bears are not known to communicate underwater. Acoustic impacts are therefore most likely to
32
occur from exposure of Pacific walruses to high levels of underwater sound or from disturbance of either Pacific walruses or polar bears from airborne sound.
Acoustic Sources
Acoustic sources operating during cable laying will include propellers, dynamic positioning thrusters, plows, jets, ROVs, echo sounders, and positioning beacons. Sound production will depend on the vessels in use and their operations. The main Quintillion fleet will include up to seven vessels during the 2017 program. The cable-lay ship Ile de Batz (or an equivalent sister ship) will operate alone or will be accompanied by a tug or support vessel. A construction barge pulling a vibro plow will install cable in areas too shallow for the Ile de Batz. Anchor handling will involve a mid-size tug, or in very shallow water, a pontoon barge and small river tug.
The Ile de Batz is propelled by two 4,000-kilowatt (kW) fixed-pitch propellers and will maintain dynamic positioning during cable-laying operations by using two 1,500-kW bow thrusters, two 1,500-kW aft thrusters, and one 1,500-kW fore thruster. Illingworth & Rodkin (I&R 2016) conducted SSV measurements of the Ile de Brehat (sister ship to the Ile de Batz) while operating near Nome at the beginning of Quintillion’s 2016 field season. They found that noise from dynamic positioning thrusters, as well as noise from the drive propellers both contributed significantly to the sound signature, but thruster noise was largely subordinate to propeller noise. I&R (2016) determined that maximum sound levels produced by the Ile de Brehat reached 185.2 dB. They applied a spreading loss model and found that a transmission loss of 17.36 Log R provided the best fit for the data. Spreading loss models were proposed for use in underwater acoustics by Weston (1971). See Lurton (2002) for more information on the use and limitations of these models. Application of I&R’s (2016) model to the maximum sound levels produced by the Ile de Brehat yielded an estimated 160-dB ensonification zone reaching 29 m (95 ft) from the vessel. The Ile de Batz is expected to produce similar levels of sound while pulling the sea plow during pre-trenching and cable-laying operations in the offshore segment of the Oliktok branch and during O&M work.
Anchor handling and ice management (for safety, if needed) will be conducted by the Vos Thalia (the same tug used in 2016) or a similar-sized tug. There is no sound signature data on the 59-m (194-ft) Vos Thalia, but data is available for the 72-m (236-ft) Katun and the 84-m (276-ft) Tor Viking II. Hannay et al. (2004) and LGL/JASCO/Greeneridge (2014) measured sound production for the Katun and the Tor Viking II and documented sound levels reaching 184 dB and 188 dB, respectively, during anchor handling and ice management. Applying these sound levels to I&R’s transmission loss model yields a 160-dB ensonification zone with a radius of 26 m (85 ft) for the Katun and 41 m (135 ft) for the Tor Viking II. Propeller cavitation, rather than contact with the ice, is expected to be the primary sound source during ice management activities, if needed, by this class of vessel.
The M/V Discoverer will provide support for the cable ship. This 27-m (89-ft) vessel is considered “ice-hardened.” It is not capable of conducting ice management, but will assist with ice detection and monitoring. It is powered by four 551-kW controllable pitch propellers. Sound production levels have not been documented for this vessel, but it will not be towing, plowing, or doing other particularly noisy work. During normal operations, noise from small ships typically
33
elevates the natural ambient noise by 10 to 40 dB (Malinowski 2002). Other ships in this size class have been documented to produce sound levels of 127 to 129 dB (Chakraborty 2015).
Noise from the construction barge will mainly be generated during use of the vibro plow. There are no available estimates of sound produced during cable installation by a vibro plow in the Arctic, but LouisDreyfus (2014) reported SSV results from various trenching equipment, including a vibro plow, in offshore waters of France. Nedwell et al. (2003) recorded broadband sound levels reached during trenching in the United Kingdom. These studies reported source levels of 176 and 178 dB, respectively. If we use 178 dB to predict the radii of the ensonification zone using a transmission loss model, we get an estimated distance of 16 m (52.5 ft) to the outer edge of the 160-dB zone. This estimate was derived using a practical spreading loss model with a transmission loss constant of 15 rather than I&R’s (2016) 17.36 Log R transmission loss model. Use of the vibro plow will occur in shallow water and the I&R (2016) model was estimated from Quintillion’s work in deeper offshore water. Sound carries farther in shallow water due to refraction and reflection and in this case, a practical spreading loss model is likely to be more accurate for predicting attenuation (NOAA 2012).
A small river tug will be used to maneuver a pontoon barge during anchor handling in shallow water. The specific tug has not yet been identified, but small tugs can produce broadband underwater noise up to 180 dB; the loudest sounds are usually generated by thrusters when towing (Richardson et al.1995; Blackwell and Greene 2003). Applying the practical spreading loss model results in a maximum 160-dB ensonification zone with a radius of 22 m (72 ft).
Echo sounders, transceivers, and transponders will be used to conduct hydroacoustic surveys of water depth and to guide the position of the plow and ROV. Sound levels produced by these sources can range from 210 to 226 dB, but are generally at frequencies above the hearing sensitivities of Pacific walruses; typical frequencies are 24 to 900 kHz. Pulses of sound are produced every 1 to 3 seconds in narrow downward-focused beams; there is very little horizontal propagation of noise. I&R (2016) attempted to measure echo sounder and transponder sound levels associated with the Ile de Brehat, but could not detect them, even at a very close range.
Anchor handling with tugs, vibro plowing from the barge, and cable laying from the Ile de Batz may be conducted simultaneously, resulting in multiple or overlapping ensonification zones, particularly along the Oliktok cable branch. Ice management will only be conducted if needed for the safety of the vessels and crew and may occur when the cable ship is underway. Thruster noise from the ice management tug and propeller cavitation noise from the cable ship could therefore occur concurrently, although propeller noise produced by the Ile de Batz during transit will be lower than that produced during cable laying. Sound from multiple sources may combine synergistically or partly cancel out, depending on the hydrodynamics and acoustics involved.
Acoustic Thresholds
Potential acoustic impacts from exposure to high levels of sound may cause temporary or permanent changes in hearing sensitivity. Researchers have not studied the underwater hearing abilities of the Pacific walrus sufficiently to develop species-specific criteria for preventing harmful exposure. Sound pressure level thresholds have been developed for other members of
34
the pinniped taxonomic group, above which exposure is likely to cause behavioral responses and injuries (Finneran 2015).
Thresholds for predicting behavioral impacts equating to Level B take under the MMPA have been developed from observations of marine mammal responses to airgun operations (e.g., Malme et al. 1983a, 1983b; Richardson et al. 1986, 1995) or have been equated with TTS detected in lab settings. For pinnipeds, NMFS has traditionally adopted a 160-dB threshold for exposure to impulse noise and a 120-dB threshold for continuous noise (NMFS 1998; HESS 1999). Southall et al. (2007) assessed relevant studies, found considerable variability among pinnipeds, and determined that exposures between about 90 and 140 dB generally do not appear to induce strong behavioral responses in pinnipeds in water, but an increasing probability of avoidance and other behavioral effects exists in the range between 120 and 160 dB.
Southall et al. (2007) reviewed the literature and derived behavior and injury thresholds based on peak sound pressure levels of 212 dB (peak) and 218 dB (peak), respectively. Because onset of TTS can vary in response to duration of exposure, Southall et al. (2007) also derived thresholds based on sound exposure levels (SEL). The SEL can be thought of as a composite metric that represents both the magnitude of a sound and its duration. The study proposed threshold SELs weighted at frequencies of greatest sensitivities for pinnipeds of 171 dB (SEL) and 186 dB (SEL) for behavioral impacts and injury respectively (Southall et al. 2007). Kastak et al. (2005) found exposures resulting in TTS in pinniped test subjects ranging from 152 to 174 dB (183 – 206 dB SEL). Reichmuth et al. (2008) demonstrated a persistent TTS, if not a PTS, after 60 seconds of 184 dB SEL. Kastelein (2012) found small but statistically significant TTSs at approximately 170 dB SEL (136 dB, 60 min) and 178 dB SEL (148 dB, 15 min). Finneran (2016) summarized these studies.
New guidance has been recently released by NMFS (2016) for avoidance of underwater acoustic injury (Level A take) for marine mammals based on estimates of PTS summarized by Finneran (2016). The thresholds for non-impulse sound are based on cumulative SEL levels (SELcum) and include weighting adjustments that account for the sensitivity of different species to varying frequencies. These recommendations do not identify criteria for avoidance of Level B take, but do identify threshold sound levels above which marine mammals may experience TTS. For pinnipeds, PTS is predicted to occur at 219 dB SELcum, and TTS at 199 dB SELcum.
Quintillion evaluated the probability of exceeding PTS thresholds given the project’s predicted sound levels using calculations in the “Safe Distance Methodology for Mobile Sources” user spreadsheet developed by NMFS for this purpose (see I&R 2016 for calculations). Model outcomes predicted there is no area where injury thresholds for pinnipeds will be exceeded. We repeated these model calculations using the same assumptions to evaluate the likelihood of reaching TTS at 199 dB SELcum. The radius of the resulting sound isopleth was 1.9 m (6.2 ft) from the source.
We then used the “Stationary source: Non-Impulsive, Continuous” model to predict the size of the 199 dB SELcum ensonification zone during stationary activities such as anchor handling. We assumed the maximum sound pressure level of 188 dB, a weighting adjustment factor of 2 for broadband sound below 8.5 kH, and a spreading loss constant of 15 for shallow water. The
35
model predicted that pinnipeds within 2.4 m (7.9 ft) of the sound source could experience TTS within 60 seconds. Those remaining within 16 m (52.5 ft) of the sound source for 17 minutes could experience TTS, as could those within 22 m (72 ft) for 28 minutes, 29 m (95 ft) for 43 minutes, and those remaining within 41 m (135 ft) for 72 minutes or longer.
Based on the NMFS (2016) thresholds for TTS onset, most animals that are exposed to the maximum estimated sound production level (188 dB) will not remain within the radius of the 160-dB ensonification zone (41 m [135 ft] from the vessel) long enough to experience TTS. Pacific walruses swim at an average speed of 7 km/h (4.4 mi/h) and maximum speeds up to 35 km/h (22 mi/h) (MarineBio 2013). At those rates of travel, an unhindered Pacific walrus could depart the largest 160-db ensonification zone generated by the proposed project within 1 minute.
The new thresholds help predict when animals may experience TTS, but behavioral reactions in response to noise or vessel activities remain a more likely cause of Level B take. Animals exposed to high levels of sound are not likely to be experience TTS without also expressing significant changes in behavior. The best predictor of behavioral response for Pacific walruses exposed to underwater sound continues to be the distance at which the encounter occurs in relation to the sound levels produced.
Applying a precautionary approach in the absence of empirical information, we therefore assume it is possible that Pacific walruses exposed to 190 dB or greater sound levels from underwater activities could suffer injury from PTS. Sound pressure levels greater than 180 dB could cause TTS. Repeated or continuous exposure to sound levels between 160 and 180 dB may also result in TTS, but exposures above 160 dB are more likely to elicit behavioral responses.
The Service’s underwater sound mitigation measures include employing PSOs to establish and monitor 160-dB, 180-dB, and 190-dB isopleth ensonification zones centered on any underwater sound source greater than 160 dB. Quintillion’s work is not expected to generate sound levels greater than 190 dB, but PSOs will monitor areas within the 160-dB zone (including a 180-dB zone) during all work in areas where Pacific walruses could occur. Pacific walruses in this zone will be assumed to experience Level B take due to the possibility that prolonged sound exposure may lead to TTS, and the higher probability of biologically significant behavioral responses.
Behavioral Responses to Disturbance
Marine mammals in general have variable reactions to sights, sounds, smells, and visual presence of vessels and human activities. An individual’s reactions will depend on their prior exposure to the disturbance source, their need or desire to be in the particular area, their physiological status, or other intrinsic factors. The location, timing, frequency, intensity, and duration of the encounter are among the external factors that also determine the animal’s response. Relatively minor reactions such as increased vigilance or a short-term change in direction of travel are not likely to disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns and do not constitute take by harassment as defined by the MMPA. These types of responses typify the most likely reactions of the majority of Pacific walruses and polar bears that will interact with Quintillion’s activities.
36
Extreme behavioral reactions capable of causing injury are characterized as Level A harassment and will not be authorized. Examples include separation of mothers from young or stampedes, which could result in death from trampling of young animals. Quintillion has included measures to prevent such disturbances (see section 2.2.4 Mitigation and Monitoring).
Intermediate reactions disrupting biologically significant behaviors, such as interruptions in nursing, feeding, or resting may potentially result in decreased fitness for the affected animal. These reactions meet the criteria for Level B harassment under the MMPA and are discussed for each species in the following sections.
Behavioral Responses of Pacific Walruses
Between June and mid-November, Pacific walruses may be found in the Chukchi Sea near the edge of seasonal pack ice, among broken sea ice, in preferred feeding areas (especially the HSWUA), at coastal haulouts, or travelling between these areas. While animals may be present anywhere west of 153° W., Quintillion’s vessels are most likely to encounter Pacific walruses in two areas: (1) along the cable route as it passes between the HSWUA and a seasonal haulout at Point Lay (cable-laying and support vessels may cross paths with walruses that are traveling between these areas), and (2) near the Point Barrow ice field when project vessels are in transit to and from the Beaufort Sea. Oliktok Point is east of 153° W., walruses are not likely to be encountered there.
Pacific walruses may respond to the sights, sounds, and smells of humans, machinery, and equipment. Typical behavioral responses to disturbances include: altered headings; increased swimming rates; increased vigilance; changes in dive, surfacing, respiration, feeding, and vocalization patterns; and hormonal stress production (e.g., see Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007; Ellison et al. 2011). Low-level reactions are common and can be caused by both natural and anthropogenic sources. Pacific walruses at haulouts have been documented reacting to minor disturbances with head raises and changes in body orientation in response to passing ships, aircraft, rock slides, and seabird activities (Helfrich and Meehan 2004).
Significant behavioral responses include displacement from preferred foraging areas, increased stress levels or energy expenditures, or cessation of feeding. Disturbance that occurs while Pacific walruses are resting at a haulout may have the greatest potential for harmful impacts. Disturbance events in the Chukchi Sea have been known to cause groups to abandon land or ice haulouts and occasionally result in trampling injuries or separation of a calf from a cow, both of which are potentially fatal (USFWS 2015a). Females with dependent calves are considered least tolerant of disturbance and most likely to flee a haulout. Calves and young animals at terrestrial haulouts are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries during a stampede.
Quintillion’s activities are planned to avoid terrestrial haulouts and seasonal sea ice, but may encounter hauled-out animals on drifting ice. Icebreaking activities in the Chukchi Sea were observed to displace some Pacific walrus groups up to several kilometers away (Brueggeman et al. 1990). Approximately 25 percent of groups on pack ice responded by diving into the water; most reactions occurred within 0.8 to 1 km (0.5 – 0.6 mi) of the ship. However, groups of hauled-out walruses beyond these distances generally showed little reaction to icebreaking
37
activities (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991). Pacific walruses are typically less sensitive to disturbance when they are in the water than when hauled out on land or ice (Fay et al. 1984). Pacific walruses on ice have been observed to move away from an approaching ship that is hundreds of meters away, whereas walruses in water react at ranges of tens of meters (Fay et al., 1984). Quintillion’s vessels will maintain slow speeds in the presence of Pacific walruses. Ice management activities will not be conducted, except in emergencies.
Pacific walruses may become habituated to some activities, tempering their reactions. For example, Pacific walruses at haulouts show increased tolerance of outboard motorboats in years when they are not hunted from boats compared with years when hunting occurs (Malme et al. 1989). Most adult walruses have had some previous exposure with ships at sea and probably have some degree of habituation to vessel propulsion sounds. In general, low frequency diesel engines have been observed to cause fewer disturbances than high-frequency outboard engines (Fay et al. 1984). The presence of Quintillion’s vessels alone has little consequence for most animals and is unlikely to cause significant disturbances in the absence of cable-laying or ice-breaking activity.
Vessels will produce higher noise levels during cable laying than while in transit. These noises may evoke behavioral responses in addition to the possible impacts to hearing discussed previously. Passive acoustic monitoring conducted during Quintillion’s 2016 work documented Pacific walruses vocalizing in the local area before and after, but not during, cable-laying work. There is a possibility that the Pacific walruses moved or ceased vocalizing due to the project’s noise (Owl Ridge 2017). This may be an indication of auditory masking (a change in the ability to detect relevant sounds in the presence of other sounds (Wartzok et al. 2003). The biological implications of anthropogenic masking among walruses are unknown, but if the Pacific walruses’ response to masking is to leave the area, then the physiological costs are similar to those of other disturbances that trigger the same response.
The most likely behaviorally significant responses that Quintillion’s activities may evoke among Pacific walruses include temporary cessation of feeding, resting, or communicating. Some animals could abandon a preferred travel corridor or foraging area. Some could abandon a haulout on ice, although the proposed avoidance and minimization measures will reduce this likelihood. Effects of these types of mid-level responses include increased energy expenditures and stress levels. Energetic costs are incurred from loss of forage and energy expended while travelling to another region.
The overall impact to the affected animals depends on the duration and frequency of the disturbance events and the ability of the affected animals to reach and use alternate areas. All Quintillion’s activities within the range of the Pacific walruses in 2017 are expected to be short-duration transient activities. No activities will restrict availability of or access to other nearby suitable foraging habitat or alternate travel routes during this project. Pacific walruses will therefore be able to return to normal behaviors and avoid prolonged disturbances. Short-term increased energy expenditures are expected to be within tolerance levels and will not affect survival or reproductive capacity of any Pacific walruses.
38
Behavioral Responses of Polar Bears
Quintillion’s crew may see polar bears among broken ice near Point Barrow or Oliktok Point during early summer activities. If the ice retreats northward prior to the start of the work season, the crew may not encounter bears until August or September, when polar bears become more common near shore and along the barrier islands. At that time, workers along the Oliktok branch line could see bears resting or travelling along the coast. The amount of time the bears spend in these coastal habitats depends on a variety of factors including storms, ice conditions, and the availability of food. The remains of subsistence-harvested bowhead whales at Cross and Barter islands provide a readily available food source and may influence the numbers of bears in the area (Schliebe et al. 2006).
Sights, sounds, and scents produced by Quintillion’s activities may elicit a wide range of responses from polar bears. Individual responses are shaped by previous experiences and individual tolerance levels. Polar bears have been observed to respond to the sights and sounds of human activities including vessels, vehicles, and aircraft (e.g., Watts and Ratson 1989; Dyck 2001; Dyck and Baydack 2004; Andersen and Aars 2005). Noise and vessel activity may act as a deterrent or cause physiological stress. Alternately, novel sights and sounds could attract bears in search of a potential food source.
Much of the available information about the responses of polar bears to construction and industrial activity comes from PSO monitoring reports. From 2010 through 2014, we received 1,234 reports of 1,911 polar bears in both on- and off-shore areas of the Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and in coastal Alaska. Most of these sightings are very likely repeated observations of the same animals. Based on these reports and coastal survey data, the Service estimated that up to 125 individuals of the SBS stock occur between Utqiagvik and the Canada border during the fall period. The greatest numbers of polar bears are found along the coast and barrier islands from August to October. The majority of observations were of bears walking near vessels, development sites, or work areas. Offshore oil and gas facilities typically documented the highest numbers of polar bear sightings, followed by onshore facilities. Reports by vessels at sea were relatively uncommon. Most sightings were of single adult and sub-adult bears. Fewer sightings were of sows with cubs. Polar bear sightings have generally increased in recent years, probably due in part to greater monitoring efforts, and possibly also due to increased use of coastal areas by bears. In most cases, the bear showed no response or responded by walking or swimming away from the facilities or activities.
Chronic disturbances, extreme reactions (fleeing or fighting), or disturbances affecting key behaviors are more likely to affect fitness and can cause injury. Human-bear interactions and impacts to denning polar bears are of particular concern. These events have the potential to cause Level A take. Polar bears attracted to human activities are at significant risk of human-bear conflicts, which could result in intentional hazing or possibly lethal take in defense of human life. Historically, polar bear observations are seasonally common, but close encounters with people are uncommon.
Increased use of onshore habitat by polar bears has also led to higher incidences of human-bear conflict (Dyck 2006; Towns et al. 2009). In two studies of polar bears killed by humans in
39
northern Canada, researchers found that the majority of conflicts resulting in polar bears being killed in defense of life occurred during the open-water season (Stenhouse et al. 1988; Dyck 2006). Thus, as more polar bears come on shore during summer, and spend longer periods of time on land, there is an increased risk of human-bear conflict, resulting in potential for more defense-of-life kills.
Lethal take of polar bears associated with development or industrial activities is very rare. Since 1968, there have been three documented cases of lethal take of polar bears associated with oil and gas activities. Polar bear interaction plans, training, and monitoring help reduce the potential for encounters and the risks to bears and humans when encounters occur. Quintillion has included such efforts in their 4MP (Owl Ridge 2016).
Disturbances during denning may also cause Level A take, depending on the timing of the disturbance. Disturbance during the early stages of denning may cause a female to abandon the den site in search of another one. Disturbance during late stages of denning could cause premature den abandonment and reduced cub survival (Amstrup 1993; Ramsay and Stirling 1986). Quintillion’s activities will not overlap with the denning season and are not likely to affect denning polar bears.
Polar bears are most likely to react to Quintillion’s activities with short-term behavioral responses, such as changes in direction of travel, discontinued hunting efforts, or heightened levels of vigilance. The effects of retreating from a disturbance may be minimal if the event is short and the animal is otherwise unstressed. However, on a warm day, a short run may be enough to overheat a well-insulated polar bear. The effect of fleeing a vessel on young polar bear cubs would likely be the use of energy that otherwise would be needed for survival during a critical time in a polar bear’s life. Significant behavioral responses could also include abandonment of a seal carcass or a preferred hunting area, or fleeing from land into water. Polar bears disturbed while resting may exhibit more substantial energy expenditures or adverse physiological responses than those disturbed while active (Watts et al. 1991).
Open-water encounters with polar bears are possible. Monitoring reports from the oil and gas industry and from Quintillion’s 2016 work reported several encounters with swimming bears. In those instances, the bears were observed to either swim away from or approach the vessels. In at least one instance a polar bear approached, touched, and investigated a stationary vessel from the water before swimming away.
Disturbance of a polar bear during emergency ice management is possible. During a period of low ice in the late 1980s at an oil exploration drilling site in the Beaufort Sea, a large ice floe threatened the drill rig. After the floe was moved by an icebreaker, workers noticed a female bear with a cub-of-the-year and a lone adult swimming nearby. It was assumed these bears had abandoned the ice floe due to the activities of the icebreaker. In this type of encounter, disturbance could potentially affect the survival of the cub while disturbance of the adults was likely negligible.
Polar bears will most often respond to Quintillion’s activities with behaviors that are not biologically significant. Most polar bears will experience only short-term disturbance or
40
displacement. Bears travelling or resting in coastal areas and barrier islands will be able to alter travel routes or find comparable undisturbed resting areas without expending extensive amounts of energy or foregoing critical resources. Movement of displaced polar bears will be temporary and localized compared to the overall movement patterns of polar bears. Most bears will be able to tolerate short-term disturbance without consequence. Behavioral responses of polar bears to project activities are not likely to affect the health or survival of any individual animal.
Take Estimates
Take of Pacific Walruses
The Service anticipates that incidental take of Pacific walruses may occur during Quintillion’s cable-laying project. Noise, vessels, and human activities could temporarily interrupt feeding, resting, and movement patterns. The elevated underwater noise levels may cause short-term, nonlethal, but biologically significant changes in behavior that the Service considers to be Level B harassment. Quintillion’s O&M work includes use of a submersible ROV and placement of concrete mattresses on the seafloor. These activities may have similar effects and could cause behavioral disturbances leading to take.
Quintillion’s operations will generate noise within frequencies audible to Pacific walruses. The expected noise levels will not exceed the traditional 190-dB threshold indicative of Level A harassment for non-impulse sounds, nor will they exceed frequency-weighted injury thresholds recently released by NMFS (2016) for cumulative sound exposure. Therefore, there is no 190-dB ensonification zone from the proposed activities, and no project activities are expected to result in take by Level A harassment.
Level B take by acoustic harassment was estimated based on the number of animals that are likely to be exposed to broadband noise levels above 160 dB along the cable route, during O&M work, and during ice management. The area of the 160-dB ensonification zone is assumed to include 125 km (78 mi) of the cable route during O&M work in the Chukchi Sea and 50 km (31 mi) of the transit route where ice management may be necessary, for a total of 175 km (109 mi). It is not possible to know how much retrieval and reburial of cable (O&M activity) will be necessary, but Quintillion has projected these distances based on maximum estimates from work on other cable projects plus a buffer for unpredictable issues in an Arctic environment.
The radius of the 160-dB ensonification area was estimated by assuming that all O&M work and ice management will produce the maximum noise levels estimated for Quintillion’s fleet, regardless of the specific vessel in use or activity being conducted. The maximum level reported in Quintillion’s IHA application (OwlRidge 2016) was 188 dB produced by the propulsion systems of an ocean tug, the Tor Viking II, during ice management. The maximum source level of 188 dB was then used in a spreading loss model with transmission loss of 17.36 Log R, as described in Acoustic Sources (page 32), resulting in a 160-dB ensonification zone with a radius of 41 m (135 ft) from the vessel. The total ensonified area was calculated by multiplying the project length (175 km [109 mi]) by the width (2 × 41 = 82 m [269 ft]) to be about 14 km2 (5.5 mi2) in total area (0.082 × 175 km = 14.34 km2).
41
The Vos Thalia may replace the Tor Viking II during Quintillion’s work. During SSV, both ships, the Vos Thalia and the Ile de Brehat produced lower maximum sound levels than did the Tor Viking II. The estimation of ensonification area may therefore represent an overestimate, but it allows a degree of flexibility in the vessel used and does not result in a substantial difference in estimates of Level B take.
The number of Pacific walruses in the total ensonified area was then estimated using the best available density estimates. Aerts et al. (2014) conducted shipboard surveys for marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea from 2008 to 2013. Their highest recorded summer walrus densities were in the low ice years of 2009 and 2013 (0.04 per km2 [0.1 per mi2]). During the heavy-ice years of 2008 and 2012, densities were 0.001 and 0.006 per km2 (0.003 and 0.02 per mi2), respectively. Given the continuing trend for light summer ice conditions, it is assumed that 2017 will be similar to 2013. Therefore, the 2013 density estimate of 0.04 Pacific walruses per km2 (0.1 per mi2) is used in to calculate Level B take.
The number of walruses potentially exposed to acoustic harassment by the Quintillion project was then estimated by multiplying the density by the total area to be ensonified by noise greater than 160 dB. This calculation results in an estimate of 1 walrus (0.04 ×23 14 ≈ 0.6). This demonstrates that take by acoustic harassment is not likely to affect large numbers of walruses.
Quintillion’s activities are more likely to cause Level B take due to with behavioral responses than acoustic harassment. As with acoustic harassment, the numbers affected will be determined by the distribution of animals and their location in proximity to the project work. Most of the walruses that are exposed to Quintillion’s work will not respond in ways that are biologically significant, but the total number of takes will be a subset of the total number encountered. The number of Pacific walruses in the project area is directly associated with the seasonal distribution and extent of sea ice (Fay et al. 1984, Garlich-Miller et al. 2011, Aerts et al. 2014).
If 2017 is a high ice year, most Pacific walruses are expected to remain over the Chukchi Sea shelf and feed at areas like the HSWUA. Few Pacific walruses are expected to be encountered during Quintillion’s O&M work, as most of them will remain with the pack ice to the north or northwest of the cable route. Encounters could occur if isolated ice floes supporting Pacific walruses were to blow back southward during storm events. Walruses may also be encountered among broken ice near Point Barrow.
During low ice years, the ice edge moves north over the Arctic Basin where waters are too deep to forage. Walruses are more likely to leave the pack ice and haul out on beaches (such as near Point Lay), where they rest between offshore foraging trips until the pack ice returns in the fall. In these conditions, Pacific walruses are less likely to be encountered near Point Barrow and more likely to intercept cable-laying activities while moving between the pack ice and terrestrial haulouts in the Chukchi Sea. Independent of the extent of seasonal ice, Quintillion’s vessels could also encounter animals migrating southward though the Bering Strait in November.
It is impossible to accurately predict the total number of Pacific walruses that may be encountered due to the substantial uncertainty in the amount and location of work that will be necessary and the unknown ice conditions, but in 2016, Quintillion’s PSOs observed 1,199
42
Pacific walruses in 62 groups. The largest group had approximately 500 animals. For comparison, during marine mammal observations made for offshore oil and gas activities conducted by Shell Oil Company (Shell) in the Chukchi Sea in 2015, PSOs recorded 500 sightings of 1,397 individual Pacific walruses (Ireland and Bisson 2016). The average number per observation was only 1.5, but on several occasions, groups of more than 100 animals were observed. The maximum group size was 243 animals. Quintillion’s work will move through the range of the Pacific walrus more quickly in 2017 than in 2016 and the work season will be shorter than that of Shell’s in 2015. In general, summer densities in the project area are unpredictable, and distributions clumpy, but it is reasonable to expect that 500 or more Pacific walruses may be encountered, some of which could be harassed by Quintillion’s activities.
Most of the Pacific walruses encountered will show no response or only a low-level behavioral response. During 2016, Quintillion PSOs reported 59 encounters with individuals or groups of walruses in which behaviors were observable. Of those, 29 (32 percent) resulted in changes in behavior, including increases in swimming rate, changes in direction of travel, or increased diving or splashing. The other 40 (68 percent) had little or no reaction to the project vessels.
Quintillion’s avoidance and minimization measures will reduce the likelihood of more significant disruptions of normal behaviors, but despite the mitigation measures, some animals may show more acute responses, particularly if encountered at close range or disturbed while resting on ice. During 2016, Quintillion PSOs reported 6 encounters involving 8 walruses within 50 m (31 ft) of the vessels. Eight groups comprising 183 total animals were observed hauled out on ice floes; the largest group had 70 animals. Encounters among ice could cause animals to leave ice-based haulouts, disrupting important resting, nursing, and social behaviors. Given the possibility that any encounter involving Pacific walruses might involve large groups, and that isolated ice floes could occur anywhere within the project area, Quintillion requested take of up to 250 Pacific walruses by Level B harassment. This was based on the maximum estimated size of haulouts expected to be encountered on sea ice. It represents 50 percent of the estimated total number of encounters.
A take level of 250 is approximately 0.2 percent of the best available estimate of the current population size of 129,000 animals (Speckman et al. 2011) (250/129,000 ≈ 0.002). Although 250 Pacific walruses could potentially be taken by Level B harassment due to the possibility of significant behavioral responses, most events are unlikely to have consequences for the health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals. Pacific walruses exposed to sound produced by the project are likely to respond to proposed activities with short-term behavioral reactions and displacement of from the vicinity of active operations.
Areas affected by the specified activities will be small compared to the regular movement patterns of the population, indicating that animals will be capable of retreating from or avoiding the affected areas. Offshore activities are expected to move relatively quickly, and impacts associated with the project are likely to be temporary and localized. Animals that encounter the proposed activities may exert more energy than they would otherwise due to temporary cessation of feeding, increased vigilance, and retreat from the project area, but we would expect them to tolerate this exertion without measurable effects on health or reproduction. Adoption of the measures specified in section 2.2.4 Mitigation and Monitoring, will reduce the intensity of
43
disturbance events, and minimize the potential for injuries. In sum, we do not anticipate injuries or mortalities and none will be authorized. The takes that are anticipated would be from short-term Level B harassment in the form of brief startling reactions or temporary displacement. No long-term biologically significant impacts to walruses are expected.
Take of Polar Bears
Quintillion’s 2017 activities have the potential to cause Level B take due to harassment of polar bears. Polar bears are most likely to be observed during cable-laying activities along the Oliktok branch route. The Oliktok branch passes through a chain of barrier islands that parallels the coast. This region is often inhabited by polar bears in summer and fall. Quintillion’s PSOs observed polar bears at these locations in 2016, although usually at long distances.
Polar bears are widely distributed among sea ice and may be encountered among broken ice near Point Barrow or while in route to Oliktok Point. Ice management activities will only be done in emergencies, but if needed, would involve maneuvering broken ice with a tug. Ice management could therefore disturb polar bears among sea ice. Quintillion’s PSOs will monitor for marine mammals and report all polar bears among sea ice.
There is a low probability of encounters while Quintillion is conducting proposed O&M activities in the Chukchi Sea. Quintillion’s vessels will operate there during the open water period, and will avoid sea ice for safety reasons. Encounters with polar bears swimming in open water are uncommon. In 2016, Quintillion PSOs observed one bear swimming at sea.
Quintillion’s 2017 activities could encounter polar bears from either the CS or the SBS stocks. Polar bears encountered near Oliktok Point are most likely to be from the SBS subpopulation. Those observed in the Chukchi Sea or near Wainwright, Point Hope, Kotzebue, or Nome are probably from the CS stock. Bears near Utqiagvik may be from either stock.
The expected number of takes was calculated by assuming a similar number of bears would be encountered in 2017 as in 2016, and further assuming that any encounter could result in take. In 2016, Quintillion’s PSOs reported 12 observations of 18 bears between 5 m and 4.6 km (16 ft ̶ 2.9 mi) from the vessels. Quintillion has therefore requested take of 20 polar bears, 10 each from the SBS and CS stock. This represents a conservative approach to take estimation and is likely to overestimate the actual level of take. Of the 18 polar bears observed in 2016, 2 bears changed their direction of travel to avoid the activities; others had no apparent response to Quintillion’s vessels. Similar response rates have been reported by the oil and gas industry; based on observations of 1,911 polar bears reported by oilfield operators between 2010 and 2014, 81 percent of encounters (1,549) resulted in instances of non-taking. Therefore, the probable level of take by Quintillion is much lower than that requested.
Take of ten bears from the CS stock represents approximately 0.5 percent of the estimated population size (10 ÷ 2,000 = 0.005). Ten bears from the SBS stock is approximately 1 percent of that population (10 ÷ 900 = 0.011). Most bears will show little if any response, but some may be harassed by Quintillion’s work, particularly during encounters at close range.
44
The majority of encounters that cause polar bears to react are not expected to have long-term consequences for the affected animals. Although flight responses, abandonment of feeding areas, or other mid-level responses have the potential to reduce the long-term survival or reproductive capacity of an individual, most of the animals that show these types of responses will be able to tolerate them without consequences to survival and fitness.
We expect Quintillion’s activities to have no significant impacts to the SBS or CS stocks of polar bears for the following reasons: (1) the majority of the polar bears from each stock will not come in contact with Quintillion’s activities; (2) only small numbers of Level B take will occur; (3) take events are unlikely to have consequences for the survival or reproduction of most polar bears; and (4) the monitoring requirements and mitigation measures described in section 2.2.4 Mitigation and Monitoring, will further reduce potential impacts.
Potential Impacts on the Physical Environment 4.2.2
The preferred action is issuance of an IHA for incidental take of walruses and polar bears. The authorization of incidental take, and any take by disturbance that will result, will have no impact on the physical environment. However, polar bears and walruses may be indirectly affected if Quintillion’s activities alter the availability or quality of habitat, including food resources.
Effects on Pacific Walrus and Polar Bear Habitat
Quintillion’s 2017 program will have short-term, localized effects on Pacific walrus habitat. Local areas of benthic habitat will be affected along the Quintillion cable route during O&M work or at cable splice sites where concrete mattresses will be installed. Impacts to invertebrates from cable removal and reburial or from placement of concrete mattresses will include: (1) crushing with the sea plough or ROV; (2) dislodgement onto the surface where they may die; and (3) the settlement of suspended sediment away from the trench where it may clog gills or feeding structures of sessile invertebrates or smother sensitive species (BERR 2008).
Quintillion’s work will leave a lasting impact within the cable corridor, but will affect only a small area of the seafloor. Recolonization of benthic communities in northern latitudes is slow and may take 10 years or more (Conlan and Kvitek 2005; Beuchel and Gulliksen 2008). The maximum amount of seafloor disturbance is 125 km (78 mi). Trench widths of 3 m (10 ft) along this length could disturb a total area of 0.38 km2 (0.15 mi2) (0.003 × 125 km = 0.375 km2). This amount is an insignificant portion of the total seafloor available for Pacific walrus foraging. Further, none of the activity will occur in the HSWUA. The overall effects of cable laying on habitat and food resources will be inconsequential to Pacific walruses.
Vessel activities could affect polar bear food resources (seals). Quintillion’s activities may impact seals by causing underwater noise or disturbance. Seals may respond by abandoning habitat areas such as feeding area, haulouts, and breathing holes. Pupping lairs are a particularly important type of habitat for seals but are not likely to be affected due to the timing and location of the proposed activities. The effects of Quintillion’s activities on seals were assessed by NMFS in 2016 (81 FR 40274, June 21, 2016). The agency found that no injuries or mortalities were likely and the impacts would be limited to brief startling reactions and/or temporary
45
vacating of the area. Therefore, the Service does not expect the availability of seals as a food source for polar bears to be significantly changed due to Quintillion’s activities in 2017.
No long-term impacts to polar bear habitat are expected, including to the critical habitat designated under the ESA. The designated critical habitat for the polar bear consists of sea ice, barrier islands, and terrestrial denning habitat. The physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the polar bear include: (1) annual and perennial marine sea-ice that serve as a platform for hunting, feeding, traveling, resting, and (to a limited extent) denning; and (2) terrestrial habitats used by polar bears for denning and reproduction, as well as for seasonal use in traveling or resting. Barrier island habitat includes the barrier islands off the coast of Alaska, their associated spits, and an area extending out 1.6 km (1 mi) from the islands where this zone contains habitat that is free from human disturbance.
Pacific walruses and polar bears will likely respond to Quintillion’s short-term habitat impacts with low- to mid-level behavioral responses, such as temporary cessation of feeding or movement to another area. Responses to habitat impacts are likely to be similar to and indistinguishable from those caused by direct disturbances.
Effects of a Spill
Potential spills could involve fuel, oil, lubricants, solvents, and other substances used aboard the cable ships or support vessels. An oil spill or unpermitted discharge is an illegal act; IHAs do not authorize takes of marine mammals caused by illegal activities. If a spill did occur, the most likely impact upon Pacific walruses and polar bears would be exposure to spilled oil, which may cause injury, illness, or possibly death depending on degree and duration of exposure and the characteristics of the spilled substance. A large spill could result in a range of impacts from reduced food availability to chronic ingestion of contaminated food.
Spill response activities could disturb or displace polar bears or walruses. Use of dispersants during a spill response may increase the cumulative impact of a spill on Pacific walrus habitat by making oil more available for uptake by filter feeders and benthic invertebrates (e.g., Epstein et al. 2000; Hansen et al. 2012). However, the overall effect on the environment of response activities given a spill are expected to be lower than the level of impact of the spill alone (USFWS 2015b). The total impact of a spill event would depend on the amount, substance, and specific circumstances, but small spills, such as could occur in connection with the activities proposed by Quintillion, are unlikely to have negative impacts on Pacific walruses or polar bears.
Socio-economic Impacts 4.2.3
There are only a few locations where the proposed project area could overlap with subsistence harvest. These locations include the portion of the route passing between the villages of Diomede and Wales, the branch line into Wainwright, the branch line into Utqiagvik, and the transit route past Point Barrow. Quintillion’s vessels are not expected to affect subsistence harvest near Diomede because polar bears and walruses hunted there are usually taken from sea ice and Quintillion will not travel through sea ice in the Chukchi Sea.
46
The Quintillion cable route passes within 30 km (19 mi) of both Wainwright and Utqiagvik, and branching lines go directly to both villages. Ice management is possible near Point Barrow in July. Wainwright hunters usually take polar bears when sea ice is present in winter and spring. Pacific walruses are harvested from drifting ice floes near Wainwright and Utqiagvik during July and August (Bacon et al. 2009). Utqiagvik harvests polar bears throughout the year. Quintillion will not be operating near Wainwright when seasonal sea ice is present. Thus, the cable-laying project is not expected to affect the annual Pacific walrus or polar bear hunt in Wainwright. Quintillion will coordinate with Utqiagvik hunters and employ PSOs to watch for walruses and polar bears in order to avoid conflicts during transit or O&M activities near Utqiagvik.
Pacific walruses and polar bears from the CS stock are usually taken from sea ice in winter and spring. Quintillion will not operate among sea ice in the Chukchi Sea. Therefore, the proposed project timetables relative to the seasonal timing of the various village harvest periods will minimize the impacts to subsistence hunting. However, polar bears from the SBS stock may be harvested at any time of year. Quintillion will work closely with the affected villages and the EWC to minimize any and all effects the project might have on subsistence harvest.
Effects of Mitigation Measures 4.2.4
The Service has evaluated Quintillion’s proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures of ensuring that the project will have the least practicable impact on polar bears and Pacific walruses, their habitat, and subsistence uses. Our evaluation considered the following: (1) the manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize adverse impacts to the animals; (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the measures to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation. The expected effects of mitigation measures are: :
• Avoidance of injury or death of polar bears and Pacific walruses. • Reduction in the numbers of polar bears and Pacific walruses exposed to activities
expected to result in the take of marine mammals. • Reduction in the number of times an animal would be exposed to project activities. • A reduction in the intensity of exposure to the activities that may cause take. • Avoidance or minimization of impacts to important Pacific walrus and polar bear
habitat, especially den sites, barrier islands, haulout areas, sea ice, and foraging areas. • An increase in the probability of detecting Pacific walruses and polar bears through
PSO monitoring, allowing for more effective implementation of mitigation measures. • Reduction in the likelihood of affecting Pacific walruses and polar bears in a manner
that would alter their availability for subsistence uses.
Based on our evaluation of the mitigation measures, the Service has preliminarily determined that these measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on Pacific walruses, polar bears, and their habitat. These measures will also minimize any effects the project will have on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses.
47
Cumulative Impacts 4.2.5
Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impacts on the environment which results from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Climate change, subsistence harvest, vessel traffic, and oil and gas industry activities have contributed to current environmental conditions in the project area and could cumulatively affect the status of Pacific walruses and polar bears in the future.
Commercial and Subsistence Harvest
Pacific Walruses
Combined harvest mortality for the U.S. and Russia from 1960 through 2000 ranged from 3,200 to 16,100 animals per year (mean = 7,000). Overall, harvest levels have been declining since 1990. Estimated combined annual harvest from 2000 through 2014 averaged less than 5,000 Pacific walruses per year (USFWS unpublished data). These estimates include a 42 percent correction for struck and lost animals and, for U.S. data, a correction for under-reported harvest.
Factors affecting harvest levels include the cessation of Russian commercial walrus harvests after 1991, changes in political, economic, and social conditions of subsistence hunters in Alaska and Chukotka, and the effects of variable weather and ice conditions (Angliss and Allen 2009). Recent low U.S. harvest levels are primarily due to unfavorable sea ice conditions during the harvest season and inclement weather that has kept hunters on shore.
From 2010 through 2014, the U.S. accounted for approximately 56 percent of the total harvest of walruses while Russia accounted for the other 44 percent. In 2013 and 2014, the Russian harvest was larger than the U.S. hunt, with approximately 1,800 and 1,500 animals harvested, respectively (Shadbolt et al. 2014). Resource managers in Russia have reduced harvest quotas in recent years, based, in part, on the lower abundance estimate generated from the 2006 survey (Kochnev 2004; Kochnev 2005; Kochnev 2010; pers. comm.; Litovka 2015, pers. comm.). The Russian quota in 2000 was 3,000 animals; in 2010, it was 1,300 (Shadbolt et al. 2014). No statewide harvest quotas exist in Alaska.
The harvest rate is difficult to estimate due to uncertainty in the overall population size, but based on the estimate of approximately 129,000 Pacific walruses, the combined effects of Russian and U.S. harvest from 2010 through 2014 represented an estimated harvest rate of 3.6 percent. Chivers (1999) modeled walrus population dynamics and estimated the maximum net productivity rate for the species to be eight percent per year. One-half of the maximum net productivity rate (four percent) is considered a sustainable level for removal of animals from marine mammal populations (Wade 1998). Given that the current harvest levels are lower than the sustainable removal level, the current walrus harvest rates are thought to be sustainable.
Polar Bears
Prior to the 1950s, most hunting was by indigenous people for subsistence purposes. Increased sport hunting in the 1950s and 1960s (especially trophy hunting by non-Natives using aircraft)
48
resulted in population declines (Prestrud and Stirling 1994). Between 1954 and 1972, 222 polar bears on average were harvested annually in Alaska (Amstrup et al. 1986). In 1973, a multilateral agreement was signed by Canada, Denmark (on behalf of Greenland), Norway, Russia, and the U.S. in which these countries committed to take appropriate action to conserve polar bears and protect their habitat. Since then, hunting in the U.S. has been limited to subsistence harvest by coastal Natives, and harvest levels have decreased dramatically.
Active harvest monitoring programs are in place in regions of Alaska where hunting occurs, including the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea regions. These programs, along with the ban on sport hunting in Alaska, are largely viewed as having succeeded in reversing patterns of overharvest (Prestrud and Stirling 1994). Although subsistence hunting has the potential to have significant population impacts, current harvest levels do not currently threaten the species, either in its entirety, or in any significant portion of its range (USFWS 2017b). Native subsistence harvest continues to be the greatest source of human-caused polar bear mortality, but a small number of polar bears have also been killed during research activities, have been euthanized due to illness or injury, or have been killed by non-Natives in defense of life. These sources of mortality are counted as a part of the total human removal (Schliebe et al. 2006). Human-caused mortality may become a more significant threat in the future, particularly for stocks experiencing nutritional stress or declining numbers because of climate change. Harvest management is necessary to ensure that human-caused removals do not reduce abundance to unacceptable levels or reduce the viability of populations (Regehr et al. 2015).
Climate Change
The effects of climate change in the Arctic include increases in water and air temperatures, reductions in seasonal sea-ice extent, a longer annual open-water period, increases in acidity of seawater, increased coastal erosion, and changes in timing and intensity of storm events (IPCC 2014, NSIDC 2017, NOAA 2017). These habitat changes present significant challenges for ice-adapted species, including the Pacific walrus and polar bear. There is no single other stressor or threat to these species that has greater potential to drive the future stability of these species.
Impacts of Climate Change on Pacific Walruses
Sea surface temperatures have increased worldwide since the 1970s; observations of 2 to 4o C above long-term averages have been recorded in Arctic regions (IPCC 2014; NOAA 2017). Increases in ocean temperatures and changes in sea ice extent may affect the abundance, distribution, composition, and the quality of walrus prey (Wassmann 2011; Renaud 2015). Southern invertebrate species may move north with increasing temperatures; Arctic species and overall species richness may decline (Renaud 2015). Changes in the seasonal retreat of sea ice may alter the dynamics of the food web, favoring pelagic species over the benthic species that provide food for walruses (Grebmeier 2015; Lovvorn 2016). Secondary effects on walrus health and condition resulting from reductions in suitable foraging habitat may influence survivorship and productivity. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty and variability in the predicted effects of ocean temperature and sea ice changes on benthic productivity (Post 2013). The impacts are likely to vary throughout the Pacific walrus’s range.
49
Ocean acidification is also increasing as the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses rise. Marine organisms such as clams, snails, crabs, and corals may be subject to corrosion of calcium-based shells and skeletons. The early life stages of some bivalves and gastropods are likely to be negatively impacted—particularly those with an extended pelagic larval phase. Other organisms may be more tolerant, especially those that are periodically exposed to acidified seawater under natural conditions. Calcium-shelled organisms are prevalent in the walrus’s diet, but walruses eat a variety of different benthic organisms. This variability in their diet may provide a measure of resiliency against the effects of ocean acidification.
Walruses rely on suitable sea ice as a substrate for resting between foraging bouts, calving, molting, isolation from predators, and protection from storm events. The continued decline of sea ice is supported by the most recent climate models (IPCC 2014b; Douglas 2010). Reasonably foreseeable future impacts to walruses as a result of diminishing sea ice cover include: shifts in range and abundance; increased vulnerability to predation and disturbance; declines in available prey species; increased mortality rates from storm events; and premature separation of females and dependent calves.
When sea ice recedes beyond shallow feeding areas on the continental shelf to the deep waters of the Polar Basin, walruses tend to relocate to coastal areas to rest on land. The number of walruses using land-based haulouts along the Chukchi Sea coast during the summer months and the duration of haulout use has increased significantly over the past decade. In recent years scientists have documented tens of thousands of animals hauling out at some locations along the Russian and Alaskan coasts (Kavry et al. 2008). Disturbance at these haulouts can cause walruses to stampede into the water. Stampede-related injuries are especially dangerous for calves and young animals in herds, whose deaths have particularly high impacts on the population (Udevitz et al. 2013). Population-level impacts from climate change have not been detected, but Garlich-Miller et al. (2011) assumed that summer sea-ice loss could result in a reduced walrus population in the future.
Impacts of Climate Change on Polar Bears
Atwood et al. (2015) proposed that sea-ice loss due to anthropogenic climate change was the most important factor in the future status of polar bears. Climate change is affecting several fundamental biological characteristics of the species, which is why this topic is introduced in section 3.2 Biological Environment. That section focuses on the SBS and CS stocks and the changes in seasonal distribution, especially the recent increases in onshore habitat use in summer. Here we describe broader trends among subpopulations, emphasizing the influence of climate change on food availability.
Polar bears rely on seals for food, and regional declines in ringed and bearded seal numbers have resulted in declines in some polar bear subpopulations (Stirling and Øritsland 1995; Stirling 2002). Ringed seals are known to exhibit natural population fluctuations, but there is concern that population declines associated with changes in sea ice might overlay natural fluctuations (Chambellant et al. 2012). Diminishing ice and snow cover is thought to be the greatest challenge to the persistence of ringed seals. The snow layer surrounding a birth lair provides thermoregulation and hence, determines the survival of a nursing pup when air temperatures are
50
below freezing (Stirling and Smith 2004). Pups in lairs with thin snow roofs are also more vulnerable to predation than pups in lairs with thick roofs (Hammill and Smith 1991; Ferguson et al. 2005). When lack of snow cover has forced birthing to occur in the open, nearly 100 percent of pups died from predation (Smith and Lydersen 1991; Smith et al. 1991). Within the century, snow cover is projected to be inadequate for the formation and occupation of snow-covered birth lairs over most of the species’ range (Kelly et al. 2010; Iacozza and Fergusson 2014).
Earlier warming and break-up can also affect pupping habitat by shortening the length of time pups have to grow and mature (Kelly 2001; Smith and Harwood 2001). Rain-on-snow events during the late winter are increasing and can damage or eliminate snow-covered pupping lairs (ACIA 2005). The pups are then at risk of predation or hypothermia. Stirling and Smith (2004) postulated that if early-season rains become regular and widespread in the future, mortality of ringed seal pups will increase, especially in more southerly parts of their range.
Changes in snow and ice conditions are also likely to reduce the abundance of ribbon seals (Phoca fasciata) and bearded seals (MacIntyre et al. 2015). Consequently, some polar bear subpopulations may be unable to compensate for the reduced availability of ringed seals by increasing their taking of other seals (Derocher et al. 2004). Alternatively, walruses at terrestrial haulouts may become more available to polar bears in some areas, as the seasonal use of coastal habitat by both species increases due to decline of ice extent (Kochnev 2002; Rode et al. 2015b).
The status and trends of the polar bear subpopulations reflect the non-uniform influence of climate change. Currently, of the nineteen global subpopulations, one subpopulation is increasing; six subpopulations are stable, three are declining, and nine are data deficient (PBSG 2015). Since 2008, the Western Hudson Bay (WH) stock is the only subpopulation showing a positive change in trend (i.e., from “declining” to “stable”). For the remaining 18 subpopulations, trends either remain unchanged or are unable to be assessed due to lack of data.
The variable effect of climate change among polar bear subpopulations is notable in seasonal distribution and movement patterns. Increased seasonal use of coastal habitats has been observed among bears from the SBS and CS subpopulations, as well as for bears in Russia (Rode et al. 2015b; Atwood et al. 2016b). In the WH subpopulation, sea ice break-up now occurs approximately 2.5 weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago because of increasing spring temperatures (Stirling et al. 1999; Stirling and Parkinson 2006) which is also correlated with when female bears come ashore and when they are able to return to the ice (Cherry et al. 2013). Wilson et al. (2016) found that despite declines in availability of preferred habitat, habitat selection patterns by bears in the Chukchi Sea did not change between periods before and after significant sea ice loss. These changes, although variable, have the potential to result in large-scale shifts in distribution by the end of the 21st century (Durner et al. 2009).
Climate change can also affect polar bear nutrition and body condition (Stirling and Derocher 2012), which can subsequently influence survival and reproduction. As with other indicators, effects can vary. Sea ice-related declines in vital rates among WH bears led to reduced abundance (Regehr et al. 2007b). Similar findings have occurred in other areas; Rode et al. (2010) suggested that declining sea ice has resulted in reduced body size and reproductive rates within the SB subpopulation. Rode et al. (2014b), however, found that even though sea ice loss
51
during summer had been substantial in the Chukchi Sea, polar bears in that subpopulation did not exhibit concomitant declines in body mass or productivity.
The overall effects of climate change, although regionally variable, pose a substantive threat to the long-term viability of polar bears. As reported by Wiig et al. (2015), arctic sea ice loss has thus far progressed faster than most climate models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007). September sea extent has declined at a linear rate of 14 percent per decade from 1979 through 2011 (Stroeve et al. 2012, 2014). Arctic warming is likely to continue for several decades given the current trends in global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2014). Given these factors, the Service recently confirmed that the species remains vulnerable to future extinction due to the range-wide loss of sea ice habitat (USFWS 2017b).
Commercial Fishing and Marine Vessel Traffic
Available data from the Beaufort and Chukchi seas suggest that walruses and polar bears rarely interact with commercial fishing and marine vessel traffic. Both species are closely associated with sea ice, which limits their interactions with vessel traffic. However, as the temporal and seasonal extent of the sea ice is projected to diminish, commercial shipping through the Northwest Passage and Siberian Arctic (Northeast Passage) is likely to increase (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Arctic shipping routes. Northwest Passage, Northeast Passage, and future Central Arctic shipping routes are shown (from Nuka Research [2017]). [Top]
52
In the period from 2008 through 2015, the average number of vessels passing through the Bering Strait increased by an average of 8.5 percent per year (Nuka Research 2016). Commercial fishing opportunities may also expand if the sea ice continues to diminish. The result could be increased fishing and shipping operations in walrus and polar bear habitat and increased interactions between these animals and marine vessels.
Oil and Gas Related Activities
Oil and gas activities affect the environmental conditions of the Chukchi and Beaufort sea regions. Exploration, development, and production have been ongoing in the Beaufort Sea and on Alaska’s North Slope since the late 1960s. Exploration in the Chukchi Sea has occurred periodically since 1987; several exploratory wells have been drilled, most recently in 2015. Activities occurring to date have not resulted in any population-level impacts to the Pacific walrus or to the SBS and CS stocks of polar bears. Interactions between oil and gas activities and walruses have been minimal due to the transient nature of offshore work in walrus habitat. Polar bears have been encountered more regularly during oil and gas activities, especially on the North Slope. Most encounters involve polar bears moving through development areas without incident. However, three lethal polar bear removals have occurred from the SB subpopulation since 2008 as a result of industry activities. In 2011, an oil company security guard accidently shot and killed a female polar bear during a deterrence action. In 2012, one adult female and her two-year old male cub were found dead on an island near industry facilities. Their deaths are assumed to be related to the chemical substances found in and on the bears.
The Service assessed the effects of oil and gas development on Pacific walruses and polar bears in 2011 and 2017 (76 FR 7634, February 10, 2011; USFWS 2017c) and concluded that at current levels, oil and gas exploration posed a relatively minor threat. However, it was noted that a large oil spill could have adverse impacts on the population depending on timing, location, amount, and type of oil, and efficacy of response efforts. Activities occurring in sensitive locations could also have adverse impacts on walruses or polar bears.
The Service and other regulating agencies, including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard, regulate the activities of oil and gas industry operators in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in order to avoid and minimize environmental impacts (e.g., BOEM 2012; BOEM 2015). The Service works to monitor and mitigate potential impacts on walruses and polar bears through incidental take regulations (ITRs) authorized under the MMPA (78 FR 33212, June 12, 2013; 81 FR 52276, August 5, 2016). The current ITRs provide special considerations to limit potential impacts in sensitive habitats. Activities are limited near haulouts and in the HSWUA, particularly during July to September, when walruses may be concentrated in large numbers in this food rich environment. Activities near polar bear dens are also restricted.
Summary of Cumulative Impacts
Climate change, hunting pressure, and the expansion of commercial and industrial activities all have the potential to have cumulative impacts on Pacific walruses and polar bears. Climate change is of particular concern. The observed and projected losses of sea-ice habitats in the
53
Chukchi and Beaufort seas will likely result in continued changes in seasonal distributions and habitat use patterns of both walruses and polar bears. These factors are expected to combine to present even greater challenges to future management efforts. For example, if habitat loss leads to an increased number of nutritionally stressed polar bears on land, human-bear conflicts, and resulting human-caused removals are expected to increase (PBRS 2015). Increased mortality from human-bear encounters may then begin to have significant population-level effects for subpopulations already experiencing nutritional stress or declining numbers as a consequence of habitat change. Climate related cumulative impacts could also arise for Pacific walruses if changes in sea ice were to simultaneously alter the dynamics of the food web, reducing productivity of preferred foraging areas, while also leading to the formation of larger or more frequent land-based haulouts. Human-caused disturbances at those haul-outs could then have greater consequences for walruses that are nutritionally stressed when compared to those that are not. These examples illustrate the potential that climate change has to magnify the effects of other stressors.
The success of future management will rely in part on continued investigation into population status, trends, habitat use patterns, and effects of climate change. It is difficult to forecast the rate and magnitude of future population changes because of the uncertainty inherent in future sea-ice projections, as well as uncertainty in the relationships between habitat changes and population demographics. The effects of climate change will need to be reconsidered as more information becomes available. The effectiveness of various mitigation measures and management actions will need to be continually evaluated through monitoring programs. Harvest management methods that consider the current and future potential effects of habitat loss, the quality of data used to inform management decisions, and the possibility of population thresholds below which increasing conservation efforts should be made to reduce human-caused disturbance and removals are all important for the long-term management of populations affected by climate change (Regehr et al. 2015; USFWS 2016).
Contribution to Cumulative Impacts
The activities proposed by Quintillion may result in an incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts already affecting walruses and polar bears through displacement or disturbance, and the associated disruption of important biological behaviors. However, only a small fraction of each population is likely to interact with Quintillion’s activities. Required monitoring and mitigation measures, designed to minimize interactions between authorized projects and marine mammals, are also expected to limit the severity of any behavioral responses. Therefore, we conclude that the specified activity, as mitigated through the measures included in this IHA, would contribute only a negligible increase over and above the effects of baseline activities currently occurring, as well as future activities that are reasonably likely to occur within the period covered by the IHA. [Top]
54
Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Small Numbers
For small take analyses, the statute and legislative history do not expressly require a specific type of numerical analysis, leaving the determination of “small” to the agency’s discretion. In this case, we propose a finding that the Quintillion project may take up to 250 Pacific walruses and 20 polar bears by Level B harassment, and that these values constitute small numbers of animals. Factors considered in our small numbers determination include the number of animals in the affected area, the size of the affected area relative to available habitat, and the expected efficacy of mitigation measures.
First, the number of Pacific walruses and polar bears inhabiting the proposed impact area is small relative to the size of the populations. The potential exposures for the 2017 cable-laying period are based on estimated density and encounter rates during previous work. An allowance for the clumped distribution of Pacific walruses was also included, resulting in a total estimate of take of approximately 250 animals. This is about 0.2 percent of the population size of 129,000 estimated by Speckman et al. (2011). The number of polar bears was estimated based on past encounter rates to be 10 each from the CS and SBS stocks. This is approximately 0.5 percent of the CS stock and about 1 percent of the SBS stock.
Second, the area where the activities will occur is a small fraction of the available habitat for Pacific walruses and polar bears. Cable-laying activities will have temporary impacts to Pacific walrus and polar bear habitat along a 175-km (109-mi) linear corridor of marine waters and coastal lands in Alaska. Underwater sound levels greater than 160 dB may affect a total area of up to 14 km2 (5.4 mi2). Trenching of the seafloor may disturb the benthos along the cable route, affecting a total area of approximately 0.38 km2 (0.15 mi2). Given the expansive range and distribution of both polar bears and Pacific walruses, these areas constitute a small fraction of the available habitat. These impacts will be localized, and will not impede the use of an area after the project activities are complete.
Third, monitoring requirements and mitigation measures are expected to limit the number of takes. The cable activities will avoid sea ice, terrestrial haulouts, and important feeding habitat. Work will be timed to avoid polar bear den sites. Adaptive mitigation measures will be implemented when areas that are used by Pacific walruses and polar bears cannot be avoided. These measures will include changes in speed or course when Pacific walruses could come within 0.8 km (0.5 mi), and are expected to prevent take by Level A harassment and to minimize take by Level B harassment, especially in habitat areas of significance. Vessel activities will be monitored by PSOs, and unexpected impacts will be reported to the Service. No take by injury or death is anticipated or authorized. Monitoring and reporting will allow the Service to reanalyze and refine future take estimates and mitigation measures as activities continue in Pacific walrus and polar bear habitat in the future. Should the Service determine, based on monitoring and reporting, that the effects are greater than anticipated, the authorization may be modified, suspended, or revoked. For these reasons, we propose a finding that the Quintillion project will involve takes by Level B harassment of only a small number of animals.
55
5.2 Negligible Impact
We propose a finding that any incidental take by harassment resulting from the proposed Quintillion cable-laying operation cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect Pacific walruses or polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival, and would, therefore, have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks. In making this finding, we considered the best available scientific information, including: (1) the biological and behavioral characteristics of the species; (2) the most recent information on species distribution and abundance within the area of the specified activities; (3) the potential sources of disturbance during Quintillion’s specified activities; and (4) the potential responses of animals to this disturbance. In addition, we reviewed material supplied by the applicant, other operators in Alaska, our files and datasets, published reference materials, and species experts.
Pacific walruses and polar bears are likely to respond to Quintillion’s activities with temporary behavioral modification or displacement. These reactions are unlikely to have consequences for the health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals. Pacific walruses may be disturbed by production of underwater sound by the cable-laying vessels. Sound production is not expected to reach levels capable of causing harm, and Level A harassment is not authorized. For polar bears, the sights, sounds, smells, and visual presence of vessels, workers, and equipment could all cause disturbances. Most animals will respond to disturbance by moving away from the source, which may cause temporary interruption of foraging, resting, or other natural behaviors. Affected animals are expected to resume normal behaviors soon after exposure, with no lasting consequences. Some animals may exhibit more severe responses typical of Level B harassment, such as fleeing, abandoning a haulout, or becoming separated from other members of a group. These responses could have significant biological impacts for a few affected individuals, but most animals will also tolerate this type of disturbance without lasting effects. Thus, although 250 Pacific walruses (0.2 percent of the population) and 20 polar bears (0.5 percent of the CS stock and 1 percent of the SBS stock) are estimated to be taken (i.e., potentially disturbed) by Level B harassment, we do not expect this type of harassment to affect annual rates of recruitment or survival or result in adverse effects to the species or stock.
Our findings apply to incidental take associated with the specified activity as mitigated by the avoidance and minimization measures. These mitigation measures are designed to minimize interactions with and impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears. These measures, and the monitoring and reporting procedures, are required for the validity of our finding and are a necessary component of the IHA. For these reasons, we propose a finding that the 2017 Quintillion project will have a negligible impact on Pacific walruses and polar bears.
5.3 Effects on Subsistence Uses
We propose a finding that the anticipated harassment caused by Quintillion’s activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of Pacific walruses or polar bears for taking for subsistence uses. In making this finding, we considered the timing and location of Quintillion’s specified activities and the timing and location of subsistence harvest activities in the area of the Proposed Action. We also considered the applicant’s consultation with
56
potentially affected subsistence communities and mitigation measures for avoiding impacts to subsistence harvest.
5.4 Conclusion Summary
To fulfill the requirement of NEPA, we analyzed the probable environmental impacts of issuance of an IHA for incidental take of Pacific walruses and polar bears from the proposed Quintillion fiber optic cable-laying activities occurring between July 13 – November 15, 2017, in the State of Alaska and associated Federal waters of the northern Bering, Chukchi, and southwestern Beaufort seas. We also considered a No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action (the issuance of the IHA) primarily affects the biological and socio-economic components of the human environment. In particular, the issuance of an IHA will affect Pacific walruses and polar bears by authorizing incidental take during the Quintillion cable-laying project while imposing mitigation and monitoring requirements. In order to determine whether the Proposed Action is a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment, we reviewed the effects of the proposed cable-laying activities on walruses and polar bears, including impacts from noise, vessel-based activities, habitat impacts, and possible oil spills. We evaluated these impacts in light of the cumulative effects of subsistence harvest, climate change, vessel traffic, and past oil and gas activities.
Most of the impacts of cable-laying activities on Pacific walruses and polar bears will be short-term disturbances. Walruses and polar bears may change their location or alter their behavior in response to project noise, or when exposed to the sights, sounds, and smells associated with vessels-based activities. The majority of these disturbances will have no impacts on the survival or reproduction of the individual and no impacts to the population.
The primary environmental threat to Pacific walruses and polar bears is from the effects of climate change. In the future, declines in sea ice may affect walrus and polar bear health (body condition), distribution, breeding success, and ultimately, abundance. The long-term effects of climate change on these species are uncertain.
After considering the effects of the specified activity given the cumulative impacts from climate change and other sources, we find that the total expected takings associated with Quintillion’s activities will affect no more than small numbers and will have no more than a negligible impact on the Pacific walrus and polar bear populations inhabiting the project area. Quintillion’s activities are not anticipated to diminish the availability of these species for subsistence use. By requiring monitoring, reporting, and mitigation, the proposed cable-laying project will have the least practicable adverse impact on Pacific walruses, polar bears, and their habitat, and on the availability of these species for subsistence use.
We have concluded that approval and issuance of an authorization for the nonlethal, incidental take by Level B harassment of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears in Alaska and associated Federal waters during cable-laying activities conducted by Quintillion in 2017 would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and that the preparation of an EIS for this action is not required by section 102(2) of NEPA or its implementing regulations. [Top]
57
Chapter 6. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
6.1 Request for Public Comments
The Service published a FR notice regarding the Proposed IHA and the Draft EA on June 1, 2017 (82 FR 25304). The FR notice informed the public that we sought comment on both the Proposed IHA and the Draft EA; the comment period was 30 days. These documents are available on the Service’s webpage: https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm. The Service received letters from the Marine Mammal Commission (2017), Environmental Review, Inc. (2017), and a member of the public at large (Public 2017). No other comments were received from agencies, tribal groups, local governments, non-governmental organizations, or the public at large.
6.2 Comments Received
We reviewed and evaluated the comments received for substantive issues, new information, and recommendations. The Service’s detailed responses to each comment (USFWS 2017d,e,f) are available on the Service’s website, https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm, and are incorporated here by reference. A brief summary is provided below.
Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) 6.2.1
The Commission made the following recommendations regarding the Proposed IHA:
1. The Commission noted differences between the Service’s Proposed IHA and a proposed IHA issued by NMFS and recommended additional coordination with NMFS. The Service responded that differences between the proposed IHAs arose from the species-specific focus of our assessments and the separate processes our agencies follow. As individual agencies, it is important that we maintain autonomous decision-making authorities in order to fulfill our separate missions, mandates, and procedures. We welcome collaboration with NMFS and will continue to coordinate with NMFS where appropriate in the future.
2. The Commission recommended that the Service use a 120-dB acoustic threshold for continuous underwater sound sources to characterize Level B take of Pacific walruses, based on NMFS’s interim guidelines for Level B take of pinnipeds. The Service responded that we evaluated the best available information to determine the appropriate acoustic thresholds for Pacific walruses exposed to noise from the Quintillion project. Our decision to characterize exposure to underwater sound levels exceeding 160 dB as Level B take was based on the assessment of this project and the available information on underwater acoustic impacts to walruses in relation to the statutory requirements in the MMPA. We look forward to updating acoustic thresholds as more information becomes available in the future.
58
3. The Commission recommended that the Service require Quintillion to monitor and report polar bears that are observed approaching or within the 120-dB Level B harassment zone. The Service responded that the 120-dB zone will be monitored for polar bears and all polar bears will be reported as specified in section 2.2.4 Mitigation and Monitoring, and in 82 FR 25318 (June 1, 2017).
4. The Commission recommended that the Service make monitoring reports available for public review. The Service responded that we will publish Quintillion’s summary monitoring reports at https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/iha.htm.
5. The Commission noted that the IHA would be finalized after the beginning of the project and recommended that in the future the Service should finalize authorizations before the planned start date. The Service responded that we strive for prompt responses and timely issuance of authorizations, as appropriate. We will continue to process requests and finalize IHAs as expeditiously as possible given staff resources and workload priorities.
Environmental Review, Inc. (ERI) 6.2.2
This non-profit organization commented on the Draft EA. In general, they: 1) requested additional project oversight and enforcement of mitigation; 2) highlighted the need for additional information; 3) questioned the evaluation of alternatives, selection of mitigation measures, and suitability of an EA versus EIS; and 4) questioned the requirements for addressing Pacific walruses if they become listed under the ESA. The Service responded by answering ERIs questions, providing clarifying text, and identifying points for inclusion in the EA as described in section 6.3.
Public at Large 6.2.3
One comment was received from a member of the public at large stating general opposition to issuance of an authorization (Public 2017).
6.3 Modifications to the Draft EA
The following changes were made to the Draft EA:
1. Text has been added to section 1.1 Introduction, clarifying that other protected species, including whales, were considered by NMFS in a separate evaluation.
2. Clarifying text was added to section 1.3.2 Endangered Species Act. “Consistent with
established agency policy, the Service treats candidate species as if they were proposed for ESA listing. Consequently, section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires the Service MMM to conference with the Service’s Ecological Service program on the effects of issuance of an IHA on Pacific walruses in order to evaluate whether the proposed activities will jeopardize the continued existence of the walrus. We conferenced with the Fairbanks
59
Ecological Services Field Office and adopted all recommendations made for the protection of the Pacific walruses.”
3. Ice management has been removed from section 2.2, the Preferred Alternative – Issuance of Incidental Harassment Authorization, as a part of Quintillion’s planned project activities. Quintillion originally planned to move broken ice out of the way of the cable-laying vessel while in route through persistent ice near Point Barrow. Quintillion re-evaluated this project component and determined that it was practicable to wait until ice conditions through this area allow transit without ice management. Ice management will be conducted only in emergencies for the safety of the vessels and crews.
4. The following changes were made to section 2.2.4 Mitigation and Monitoring.
a. A mitigation measure was added: “Underwater sound levels will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable, for example by powering engines at the lowest possible level to complete work, and by choosing the smallest appropriate vessel where multiple options exist.” This will help minimize impacts to walruses from underwater noise.
b. A mitigation measure was added: “Observers will conduct monitoring during all
cable-laying work throughout the work season. Quintillion will provide night vision goggles.” Nighttime monitoring is difficult and less effective than daylight monitoring, but is practicable and will provide some additional protection for marine mammals.
c. A monitoring condition was added for explicitness and clarity: “At the discretion
of the Service, all operators will allow Service personnel, or the Service’s designated representative, to board project vessels or visit project work sites for the purpose of monitoring impacts to Pacific walruses and polar bears and subsistence uses of those species at any time throughout project activities.”
d. A monitoring condition was added: “Sound produced by the anchor-handling tug
and vibro plow will be tested to determine the appropriate size of the ensonification zone.” There are substantial uncertainties about the sound source levels generated during these activities. Quintillion has agreed to conduct the SSV work and to monitor the applicable ensonification zones.
e. A condition was added for clarity: “Quintillion’s operators shall work with PSOs
to apply adaptive measures as specified herein, and shall recognize the authority of PSOs, up to and including stopping work, except where doing so poses a significant safety risk to vessels and personnel.”
f. A mitigation measure was added: “Quintillion’s operations must avoid the sea ice
habitat of Pacific walruses and polar bears to the greatest extent practicable.”
60
Specific conditions for ice management were removed in favor of avoiding this activity altogether (except in emergencies).
5. Minor editorial and formatting changes were made throughout that do not affect the
document’s content or meaning.
6.4 Summary
The comments received did not provide substantial information regarding the Quintillion project, its effects on polar bears, walruses, habitat, subsistence harvest, or the effectiveness, feasibility, or practicability of mitigation options, to warrant making any changes to the Service’s evaluations or conclusions regarding the effect of this project on Pacific walruses, polar bears, or the human environment. The findings in the Draft EA are adopted as final in this EA. [Top]
REFERENCES
A-D
ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment). 2005. Cambridge University Press. http://www.acia. uaf.edu/pages/scientific.html.
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.
AES Alaska (ASRC Energy Services Alaska Inc.). 2015. Petition for incidental take regulations for oil and gas activities in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent lands in 2016-2021. July 1, 2015. Prepared for Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA). Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/itr_beaufort.
Amstrup, S.C. 1993. Human disturbances of denning polar bears in Alaska. Arctic 46(3):246-250.
Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling, J.W. Lentfer. 1986. Past and present status of polar bears in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14: 241–254.
Amstrup, S.C., G.M. Durner, I. Stirling, N.J. Lunn, F. Messier. 2000. Movements and distribution of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78(6):948-966.
Amstrup, S.C., T.L. McDonald, G.M. Durner. 2004. Using satellite radiotelemetry data to delineate and manage wildlife populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3):661-679.
Amstrup, S.C., B.G. Marcot, D.C. Douglas. 2008. A Bayesian network modeling approach to forecasting the 21st century worldwide status of polar bears. In: DeWeaver, E. T., C. M. Bitz and L.-B. Tremblay, editors. Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations,
61
Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications. American Geophysical Union. Washington, D.C.
Andersen, M., J. Aars. 2005. Behavioural response of polar bears to disturbance by snowmobiles. N. P. Institute. Norwegian Polar Institute. Tromsø, Norway.
Angliss R., B.M. Allen. 2009. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2008. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA. Tech Memo NMFS-AFSC-193.
Atwood, T.C., B.G. Marcot, D.C. Douglas, S.C. Amstrup, K.D. Rode, G.M. Durner, J.F. Bromaghin. 2015. Evaluating and ranking threats to the long-term persistence of polar bears. U.S. Geological Survey.
Atwood, T. C., E. Peacock, M. A. McKinney, K. Lillie, R. Wilson, D. C. Douglas, S. Miller, and P. Terletzky. 2016. Rapid environmental change drives increased land use by an Arctic marine predator. PLOS ONE 11:e0155932.
Bacon, J.J., T.R. Hepa, H.K. Brower, M. Pederson, T.P. Olemaun, J.C. George, B.G. Corrigan. 2009. Estimates of subsistence harvest for villages on the north slope of Alaska, 1994-2003. North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management.
BERR (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform). 2008. Review of cabling techniques and environmental effects applicable to the offshore wind farm industry. Technical Report. London, United Kingdom. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk /+/http:/ www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43527.pdf.
Berta, A., M. Churchill. 2012. Pinniped taxonomy: review of currently recognized species and subspecies, and evidence used for their description. Mammal Review 42:207-234.
Beuchel, F., B. Gulliksen. 2008. Temporal patterns of benthic community development in an Arctic fjord (Kongsfjorden, Svalbard): results of a 24-year manipulation study. Polar Biology 31(8):913-924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-008-0429-9.
Blackwell, S.B., J. Charles R. Greene. 2003. Acoustic measurements in Cook Inlet, Alaska, during August 2001. Prepared by Greeneridge Sciences, Inc. for National Marine Fisheries Service Protected Resources Division. Anchorage AK. https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/CI_Acoustics_Final.pdf.
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2012. National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska final integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement. U.S. Department of the Interior. Anchorage, AK.
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2012. Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program: 2012-2017. Final programmatic environmental impact statement. July 2012. Anchorage. BOEM, Regulation, and Enforcement. http://www.boem.gov/Five-Year-Program-2012-2017.
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2015. Final second supplemental environmental impact statement. Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, Chukchi Sea Planning Area - Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea, Alaska. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2014-669. http://www.boem.gov/ak193/.
62
Bromaghin, J.F., T.L. McDonald, I. Stirling, A.E. Derocher, E.S. Richardson, E.V. Regehr, D.C. Douglas, G.M. Durner, T. Atwood, S.C. Amstrup. 2015. Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline. Ecological Applications 25(3):634-651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-1129.1.
Brueggeman, J.J., C.I. Malme, R.A. Grotefendt, D.P. Volsen, J.J. Burns, D.G. Chapman, D.K. Ljungblad, G.A. Green. 1990. 1989 walrus monitoring program: The Klondike, Burger, and Popcorn prospects in the Chukchi Sea. Report from Ebasco Environmental, for Shell Western E&P, Inc. Houston, Texas.
Brueggeman, J.J., D.P. Volsen, R.A. Grotefendt, G.A. Green, J.J. Burns, D.K. Ljungblad. 1991. Final Report Shell Western E&P Inc. 1990 walrus monitoring program: the Popcorn, Burger, and Crackerjack prospects in the Chukchi Sea. Rep. from Ebasco Environmental, for Shell Western E&P, Inc. Houston, Texas.
Chakraborty, A. 2015. Relationship between ship type and underwater noise emissions. School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Manchester. Available: http://www.academia.edu/26682418/Relationship_between_ship_type_and_underwater_noise_emissions.
Chambellant, M., N.J. Lunn, S.H. Ferguson. 2012. Temporal variation in distribution and density of ice-obligated seals in western Hudson Bay, Canada. Polar biology 35(7):1105-1117.
Charapata, P.M. 2016. Back To The Future: Pacific Walrus Stress Response and Reproductive Status In A Changing Arctic. Master of Science. University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Cherry, S.G., A.E. Derocher, I. Stirling, E.S. Richardson. 2009. Fasting physiology of polar bears in relation to environmental change and breeding behavior in the Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology 32(3):383-391.
Cherry, S.G., A.E. Derocher, K.A. Hobson, I. Stirling, G.W. Thiemann. 2011. Quantifying dietary pathways of proteins and lipids to tissues of a marine predator. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(2):373-381.
Cherry, S.G., A.E. Derocher, G.W. Thiemann, N.J. Lunn. 2013. Migration phenology and seasonal fidelity of an Arctic marine predator in relation to sea ice dynamics. The Journal of animal ecology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23510081.
Chivers, S. J. 1999. Biological indices for monitoring population status of walrus evaluated with an individual-based model. Pages 239-247 in G. W. Garner, S. C. Amstrup, J. L. Laake, B. F. J. Manly, L. L. Mcdonald and Robertson D. G. eds. Marine Mammal Survey and Assessment Methods. A. A. Balkema. Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Clement, J. P., J.L. Bengtson, B.P. Kelly. 2013. Managing for the future in a rapidly changing Arctic. A report to the president. Interagency working group on coordination of domestic energy development and permitting in Alaska. Department of the Interior.
Conlan, K.E., R.G. Kvitek. 2005. Recolonization of soft-sediment ice scours on an exposed Arctic coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series 286:21-42.
63
Cushing, B.S., N.L. Cushing, C. Jonkel. 1988. Polar bear responses to the underwater vocalizations of ringed seals. Polar Biology 9(2):123-124. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00442039.
Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn, I. Stirling. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integrative and Comparative Biology 44(2):163-176.
Douglas, D.C. 2010. Arctic sea ice decline: Projected changes in timing and extent of sea ice in the Bering and Chukchi Seas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1176.
Durner, G.M., D.C. Douglas, R.M. Nielson, S.C. Amstrup, T.L. McDonald. 2007. Predicting the future distribution of polar bear habitat in the polar basin from resource selection functions applied to 21st century general circulation model projections of sea ice. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia.
Durner, G. M., D. C. Douglas, R. M. Nielson, S. C. Amstrup, T. L. McDonald, I. Stirling, M. Mauritzen, E. W. Born, O. Wiig, E. DeWeaver, M. C. Serreze, S. Belikov, M. Holland, J. A. Maslanik, J. Aars, D. A. Bailey, and A. E. Derocher. 2009. Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models. Ecological Monographs 79:25-58.
Durner, G.M., J.P. Whiteman, H.J. Harlow, S.C. Amstrup, E.V. Regehr, M. Ben-David. 2011. Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over deep-water pack ice for a female polar bear during a year of extreme sea ice retreat. Polar Biology 34(7):975-984.
Dyck, M.G. 2006. Characteristics of Polar Bears Killed in Defense of Life and Property in Nunavut, Canada, 1970-2000. Ursus 17(1):52-62.
Dyck, M.G., R.K. Baydack. 2004. Vigilance behaviour of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the context of wildlife-viewing activities at Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Biological Conservation 116(3):343-350.
E - H
Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, A.S. Frankel. 2011. A new context-based approach to assess marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conservation Biology 26(1):21-28.
Environmental Review, Inc. 2017. Comments regarding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears During the 2017 Quintillion Fiber Optic Cable Project. Sent by email to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, Marine Mammals Management Office. Tom Price. July 3, 2017. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/ mmm/iha.htm.
Epstein N, R.P.M. Bak, B. Rinkevich. 2000. Toxicity of third generation dispersants and dispersed 592 Egyptian crude oil on Red Sea coral larvae. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2000(40):497-503.
64
Fay, F.H. 1982. Ecology and biology of the Pacific walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illiger. North American Fauna. No. 74.
Fay, F.H., B.P. Kelly, P.H. Gehnrich, J.L. Sease, A.A. Hoover. 1984. Modern populations, migration, demography, trophics, and historical status of the Pacific walrus. Outer Continental. Shelf Environ. Asses. Program, Final Rep. Princ. Invest., NOAA, Anchorage, Alaska 37:231-376. OCS Study MMS 86-0021; NTIS PB87-107546.
Ferguson, S.H., I. Stirling, P. McLoughlin. 2005. Climate change and ringed seal (phoca hispida) recruitment in Western Hudson Bay. Marine Mammal Science 21(1):121-135.
Finneran, J.J. 2015. Noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals: A review of temporary threshold shift studies from 1996 to 2015. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138(3):1702-1726. http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/138/3 /10.1121/1.4927418.
Fischbach, A.S., S.C. Amstrup, D.C. Douglas. 2007. Landward and eastward shift of Alaskan polar bear denning associated with recent sea ice changes. Polar Biology 30(11):1395-1405.
Frey, K.E., K.R. Arrigo, W.J. Williams. 2012. Primary productivity and nutrient variability. Arctic Report Card, Update for 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/report12/primary_productivity.html.
Frey, K.E., G.W.K. Moore, L.W. Cooper, J.M. Grebmeier. 2015. Divergent patterns of recent sea ice cover across the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas of the Pacific Arctic Region. Progress in Oceanography 136:32-49.
Garlich-Miller, J., J.G. MacCracken, J. Snyder, M.M. Myers, E. Lance, A. Matz, J.W. Wilder. 2011. Status of the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, Anchorage, Alaska.
Gong, D., R.S. Pickart. 2015. Summertime circulation in the eastern Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Research II 118(2015)18-31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273706146_ Summertime_circulation_in_the_eastern_Chukchi_Sea.
Grebmeier, J.M., B.A. Bluhm, L.W. Cooper, S.L. Danielson, K.R. Arrigo, A.L. Blanchard, J.T. Clarke, R.H. Day, K.E. Frey, R.R. Gradinger, M. Kedra, B. Konar, K.J. Kuletz, S.H. Lee, J.R. Lovvorn, B.L. Norcross, S.R. Okkonen. 2015. Ecosystem characteristics and processes facilitating persistent macrobenthic biomass hotspots and associated benthivory in the Pacific Arctic. Progress in Oceanography 136:92-114.
Hammill, M.O., T.G. Smith. 1991. The Role of Predation in the Ecology of the Ringed Seal in Barrow Strait, Northwest-Territories, Canada. Marine Mammal Science 7(2):123-135.
Hansen, B.H., D. Altin, A.J. Olsen, T. Nordtug. 2012. Acute toxicity of naturally and chemically dispersed oil on the filter-feeding copepod Calanus finmarchicus. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 86:38-46. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science /article/pii/ S0147651312003107.
65
Helfrich, M., J. Meehan. 2004. Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary annual report 2004 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation Anchorage, AK. http://www.arlis.org.arlis.idm.oclc.org/docs/vol1/G/WalrusIslands/709805293-2004.pdf.
HESS (High Energy Seismic Survey Team). 1999. High energy seismic survey review process and interim operational guidelines for marine surveys offshore Southern California. Prepared for the California State Lands Commission and the United States Minerals Management Service Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region. Camarillo, CA.
Holland, M.M., C.M. Bitz, B. Tremblay. 2006. Future Abrupt Reductions in the Summer Arctic Sea Ice. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33(23):L23503.
Hunter, C.M., H. Caswell, M.C. Runge, E.V. Regehr, S.C. Amstrup, I. Stirling. 2010. Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis. Ecology, 91: 2883–2897. Doi:10.1890/09-1641.1.
I - L
I&R (Illingworth & Rodkin Inc.). 2016. Quintillion subsea operations fiber optic cable-laying project sound source verification. Prepared by Keith Pommerenck and James Reyff of Illingworth & Rodkin for: Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska.
Iacozza, J., and S. H. Ferguson. 2014. Spatio-temporal variability of snow over sea ice in western Hudson Bay, with reference to ringed seal pup survival. Polar Biology 37:817-832.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. Climate change 2013. The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014a. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. In: Pachauri, R.K., L.A. Meyer, editors. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014b. Summary for policymakers. In: Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx, editors. Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/.
Ireland, D., L. Bisson. 2016. Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during exploratory drilling by Shell in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea, July–October 2015: Draft 90-Day Report. Report from LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. and JASCO Applied Sciences for Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. Anchorage, Alaska.
66
Jay C.V., A.S. Fischbach, A.A. Kochnev. 2012. Walrus areas of use in the Chukchi Sea during sparse sea ice cover. Marine Ecology Progress Series 468:1-13. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v468/p1-13/.
Jeffries, M. O., J. Richter-Menge, J. E. Overland, Eds., 2014: Arctic Report Card 2014. www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard.
Kalxdorff, S.B., A. Fischbach. 1998. Distribution and abundance of marine mammal carcasses on beaches in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska 1995-1997. Unpublished Report MMM 98-1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management. Anchorage, AK.
Kalxdorff, S.B., J. Bridges. 2003. Summary of incidental take of polar bears and Pacific walrus during oil and gas industry operations in the Beaufort Sea region of Alaska, January 1, 1994 - March 31, 2000. Marine Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska.
Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, C.R. Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary threshold shift in pinnipeds: effects of noise level and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 118 (5): 3154–3163.
Kastelein, R.A., P. Mosterd, C.L. van Ligtenberg, W.C. Verboom. 1996. Aerial hearing sensitivity tests with a male Pacific walrus (Ododbenus rosmarus), in the free field and with headphones. Aquatic Mammals 22: 81–93.
Kastelein, R.A., P. Mosterd, B. van Santen, M. Hagedoorn, D. de Haan. 2002. Underwater audiogram of a Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) measured with narrow-band frequency-modulated signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112: 2173-2182.
Kastelein, R.A., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, A. Macleod, J.M. Terhune. 2012. Hearing threshold shifts and recovery in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) after octave-band noise exposure at 4 kHz. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132:2745-2761.
Kavry, V.I., A.N. Boltunov, V.V. Nikiforov. 2008. New coastal haul-outs of walruses (Odobenus rosmarus) – response to the climate changes (Pages 248-251) In: Collection of Scientific Papers from the Marine Mammals of the Holarctic V conference. October 14-18, 2008. Odessa, Ukraine.
Kelly, B.P. 2001. Climate change and ice breeding pinnipeds. In G.-R. Walther, C. A. Burga and P. J. Edwards, editor. "Fingerprints" of Climate Change: Adapted Behaviour and Shifting Species Ranges. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Kelly, B. P., J. L. Bentson, P. L. Boveng, M. F. Cameron, S. P. Dahle, J. K. Jansen, E. A. Logerwell, J. E. Overland, C. L. Sabine, G. T. Waring, and J. M. Wilder. 2010. Status review of the ringed seal (Phoca hispida). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-212, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center.
Kochnev, A. A. 2002. Autumn aggregations of polar bears on the Wrangel Island and their importance for the population. Proceedings of the Marine Mammals of the Holarctic meeting, September 10–15, 2002, Baikal, Russian Federation.
67
Kochnev, A.A. 2004. Warming of eastern arctic and present status of the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) population (Pages 284-288) In: V.M. Belkovich, editor. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Marine Mammal Council, Moscow. Russian Federation.
Kochnev, A.A. 2005. Development of the Pacific walrus aerial survey methodology. Agency Report: Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation - Federal Fisheries Agency, Anadyr, Russian Federation.
Labelle, J.C., J.L. Wise, R.P. Voelker, R.H. Schulze, G.M. Wohl. 1983. Alaska marine ice atlas. Arctic Environmental Information Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage.
LGL/JASCO/Greeneridge. 2014. Joint Monitoring Program In The Chukchi And Beaufort Seas, 2012. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., JASCO Applied Sciences, Inc., and Greeneridge Sciences, Inc. for Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., Shell Offshore, Inc. ION Geophysical and other Industry Contributors National Marine Fisheries Servcice, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/ oilgas/ion_shell_2012iha_jmp_final_comprpt.pdf.
Lindqvist, C., L. Bachmann, L.W. Andersen, E.W. Born, U. Arnason, K.M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, A.V. Abramov, Ø. Wiig. 2009. The Laptev Sea walrus (Odobenus rosmarus laptevi): an enigma revisited. Zoologica Scripta 38:113-127.
LouisDreyfus. 2014. Acoustic Impact Study Cable-Trenching operations conducted by LouisDreyfus TravOcean and the Topaz Commander vessel. Prepared by SOMME and NEOTEK for LouisDreyfus TravOcean. Caudan, France.
Lovvorn, J.R., C.A. North, J.M. Kolts, J.M. Grebmeier, L.W. Cooper, X.H. Cui. 2016. Projecting the effects of climate-driven changes in organic matter supply on benthic food webs in the northern Bering Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 548:11-30.
Lurton, X. 2002. An introduction to underwater acoustics: principles and applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
M - P
MacCracken, J.G. 2012. Pacific Walrus and climate change: observations and predictions. Ecology and Evolution 2(8):2072-2090. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece 3.317 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3434008/pdf/ece30002-2072.pdf.
MacIntyre, K. Q., K. M. Stafford, P. B. Conn, K. L. Laidre, and P. L. Boveng. 2015. The relationship between sea ice concentration and the spatio-temporal distribution of vocalizing bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas from 2008 to 2011. Progress in Oceanography 136:241-249.
Malinowski, S.J., I. Gloza. 2002. Underwater noise characteristics of small ships. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 88(5):718-721.
Malme, C. I., P. R Miles, C. W. Clark, P. L. Tyack, J. E. Bird. 1983a. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray
68
whale behavior. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Washington, D.C., U.S.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles. 1983b. Acoustic testing procedures for determining the potential impact of underwater industrial noise on migrating gray whales. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 74(S1):S54-S54.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, G.W. Miller, W.J. Richardson, D.G. Roseneau, D.H. Thompson, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1989. Analysis and ranking of the acoustic disturbance potential of petroleum industry activities and other sources of noise in the environment of marine mammals in Alaska. BBN Report 6945, OCS Study MMS 89-0006. Report from BBN Systems and Technological Corporation, Cambridge, MA for U.S. Minerals Management Service, NTIS PB90-188673. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Anchorage, Alaska.
MarineBio. 2013. Walruses, Odobenus rosmarus. MarineBio Conservation Society. MarineBio.org. Last update: 1/14/2013 Accessed Monday, March 20, 2017. http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=184.
Marine Mammal Commission. 2017. Letter Addressed to Ms. Kimberly Klein, dated June 13, 2017. Signed by Rebecca J. Lent, Ph.D. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/ iha.htm.
Markon, C.J., S.F. Trainor, F.S. Chapin. 2012. The United States National climate assessment – Alaska technical report. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1379.
Meier, W.N., G.K. Hovelsrud, B.E.H. Evans, J.R. Key, K.M. Kovacs, C. Michel, C. Hass, M.A., Granskog, S. Gerland, D.K. Perovish, A. Makshtas, and J.D. Reist. 2014. Arctic sea ice in transformation: A review of recent observed changes and impacts on biology and human activity. Review of Geophysics 51:185-217.
Monson, D.H., M.S. Udevitz, C.V. Jay. 2013. Estimating age ratios and size of Pacific walrus herds on coastal haulouts using video imaging. PLOS ONE 8(7):e69806.
Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, M. Amundin, B. Röken, T. Møller, T.A. Mooney, K.A. Taylor, M. Yuen. 2007. Polar bear Ursus maritimus hearing measured with auditory evoked potentials. Journal of Experimental Biology 210:1116-1122.
Nedwell, J., J. Langworthy, D. Howell. 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 windfarms, and comparison with background noise. Report No. 544 R 0424. Subacoustech Ltd for the Collaborative for Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE).
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Incidental taking of marine mammals; acoustic harassment. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Federal Register 63(143):40103.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016. Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing; Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. Silver Spring,
69
MD. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/Acoustic%20Guidance%20Files/opr-55_acoustic_guidance_tech_memo.pdf.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. Guidance Document: Sound Propagation Modeling to Characterize Pile Driving Sounds Relevant to Marine Mammals. Seattle, Washington. NMFS Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2017. National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: Global Time Series, published March 2017, retrieved on April 6, 2017 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Undated. Interim Sound Threshold Guidance. http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/marine_mammals/ threshold_guidance.html.
NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center). 2017. Arctic sea ice news and analysis. March 22, 2017. University of Colorado. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.
Nuka Research and Planning Group LLC. 2016. Bering Sea Vessel Traffic Risk Analysis. Available: http://www.oceanconservancy.org/places/arctic/bering-sea-vessel-traffic.pdf.
Overland, J.E., M. Wang. 2013. When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free? Geophysical Research Letters. 40(10):2097-2101.
Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants Inc. 2017. 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. Prepared for: Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC. Anchorage, Alaska.
Pagano, A.M., G.M. Durner, S.C. Amstrup, K.S. Simac, G.S. York. 2012. Long-distance swimming by polar bears (Ursus maritimus) of the southern Beaufort Sea during years of extensive open water. Canadian Journal of Zoology 90(5):663-676.
Parsons, L. S., W. H. Lear. 1993. Perspectives on Canadian marine fisheries management. National Research Council of Canada. NRC Research Press, 1993 ISBN 0-660-15003-4.
PBSG (Polar Bear Specialist Group). 2001. Polar bears: Proceedings of the 13th working meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, Nuuk, Greenland. IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. Nuuk, Greenland.
PBSG (Polar Bear Specialist Group). 2015. Summary of polar bear population status per 2014. IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html.
PBRS (Polar Bear Range States). 2015. Circumpolar Action Plan: Conservation Strategy for Polar Bears. Published by the representatives of the parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached% 20Files/Fiskeri_Fangst_Landbrug/Polarbear%202015/CAP/CAP%20Book.pdf.
Post, E., U.S. Bhatt, C.M. Bitz, J.F. Brodie, T.L. Fulton, M. Hebblewhite, J. Kerby, S.J. Kutz, I. Stirling, D.A. Walker. 2013. Ecological consequences of sea-ice decline. Science 341(6145):519-524.
70
Prestrud, P., I. Sterling. 1994. The international polar bear agreement and the current status of polar bear conservation. Aquatic Mammals 20(3):113-124.
Public. 2017. Comments regarding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears in Alaska and Associated Federal Waters. Submitted by a Member of the Public. Sent by email to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, Marine Mammals Management Office. June 2, 2017. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/ mmm/iha.htm.
Pungowiyi, C. 2000. Testimony at the oversight hearing on the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Sections 118 and 119), April 6, 2000, in: Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation Wildlife and Oceans (Ed.), Washington DC.
R - T
Ramsay, M.A., I. Stirling. 1986. On the mating system of polar bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64(10):2142-2151.
Ray, C.E. 1971. Polar bear and mammoth on the Pribilof Islands. Arctic 24(1):9-18.
Ray, G.C., J. McCormick-Ray, P. Berg, H.E. Epstein. 2006. Pacific walrus: Benthic bioturbator of Beringia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330(1):403-419.
Ray, G.C., G.L. Hufford, J.E. Overland, I. Krupnik, J. McCormick-Ray, K. Frey, E. Labunski. 2016. Decadal Bering Sea seascape change: consequences for Pacific walruses and indigenous hunters. Ecological Applications 26: 24–41.
Regehr, E.V., S.C. Amstrup, I. Stirling. 2006. Polar bear population status in the southern Beaufort Sea. 2006-1337.
Regehr, E.V., N.J. Lunn, S.C. Amstrup, I. Stirling. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice breakup on survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2673-2683. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2006-180.
Regehr, E. V., R. R. Wilson, K. D. Rode, M. C. Runge. 2015. Resilience and risk—a demographic model to inform conservation planning for polar bears. Open-File Report 2015–1029, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Reichmuth, C. 2008. Effects of noise and tonal stimuli on hearing in pinnipeds. Santa Cruz, California. University of California Santa Cruz. http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/ Science-Technology/Departments/Code-32/All-Programs/Atmosphere-Research-322/Marine-Mammals-Biology/~/media/743720C14BCC4960998116FD 4FD2F2A5.ashx.
Renaud, P.E., M.K. Sejr, B.A. Bluhm, B. Sirenko, I.H. Ellingsen. 2015. The future of Arctic benthos: Expansion, invasion, and biodiversity. Progress in Oceanography 139:244-257.
Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, C.R. Greene. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, to seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 79(4):1117-1128.
71
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California.
Rode, K.D., S.C. Amstrup, E.V. Regehr. 2010a. Reduced body size and cub recruitment associated with sea ice decline in polar bears. Ecological Applications 20(3):768-782.
Rode, K.D., J.D. Reist, E. Peacock, I. Stirling. 2010b. Comments in response to “Estimating the energetic contribution of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) summer diets to the total energy budget” by Dyck and Kebreab (2009). Journal of Mammalogy 91(6):1517-1523.
Rode, K., E. Peacock, M. Taylor, I. Stirling, E. Born, K. Laidre, Ø. Wiig. 2012. A tale of two polar bear populations: ice habitat, harvest, and body condition. Population Ecology 54(1):3-18.
Rode, K.D., E.V. Regehr, D.C. Douglas, G. Durner, A.E. Derocher, G.W. Thiemann, S.M. Budge. 2014. Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology 20(1):76-88. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23913506.
Rode, K.D., C.T. Robbins, L. Nelson, S.C. Amstrup. 2015a. Can polar bears use terrestrial foods to offset lost ice‐based hunting opportunities? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13(3):138-145.
Rode, K. D., R. R. Wilson, E. V. Regehr, M. S. Martin, D. C. Douglas, and J. Olson. 2015b. Increased land use by Chukchi Sea polar bears in relation to changing sea ice conditions. PLOS ONE 10:e0142213.
Rogers, M.C., E. Peacock, K. Simac, M.B. O’Dell, J.M. Welker. 2015. Diet of female polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea of Alaska: evidence for an emerging alternative foraging strategy in response to environmental change. Polar Biology 38(7):1035-1047. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/644/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00300-015-1665.
Sahanatien, V., A.E. Derocher, M. Gompper. 2012. Monitoring sea ice habitat fragmentation for polar bear conservation. Animal Conservation 15(4):397-406.
Schindler, D.W., J.P. Smol. 2006. Cumulative effects of climate warming and other human activities on freshwaters of Arctic and Subarctic North America. Ambio, 35(4), 160–168. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315714.
Schliebe, S., T. Evans, K. Johnson, M. Roy, S. Miller, C. Hamilton, R. Meehan, and S. Jahrsdoerfer. 2006. Range-wide status review of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska.
Schliebe, S., K.D. Rode, J.S. Gleason, J. Wilder, K. Proffitt, T.J. Evans, S. Miller. 2008. Effects of sea ice extent and food availability on spatial and temporal distribution of polar bears during the fall open-water period in the southern Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology 31(8):999-1010. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000256477300010.
Serreze, M.C., M.M. Holland, J. Stroeve. 2007. Perspectives on the Arctic's Shrinking Sea-Ice Cover. Science 315(5818):1533-1536.
72
Seymour, J., L. Horstmann-Dehn, M.J. Wooller. 2014. Inter-annual variability in the proportional contribution of higher trophic levels to the diet of Pacific walruses. Polar Biology 37:597-609.
Shadbolt, T., T. Arnbom, E. W. T. Cooper. 2014. Hauling out: international trade and management of walrus. TRAFFIC and WWF-Canada. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?234011/Hauling-out-International-trade-and-management-of-Walrus.
Sheffield, G., 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.
Smith, T. G., M. O. Hammill, and G. Taugbøl. 1991. A review of the developmental, behavioural and physiological adaptations of the ringed seal, Phoca hispida, to life in the arctic winter. Arctic 44:124-131.
Smith, T. G., and C. Lydersen. 1991. Availability of suitable land-fast ice and predation as factors limiting ringed seal populations, Phoca hispida, in Svalbard. Polar Research 10:585-594.
Smith, T. G., and L. A. Harwood. 2001. Observations of neonate ringed seals, Phoca hispida, after early break-up of the sea ice in Prince Albert Sound, Northwest Territories, Canada, spring 1998. Polar Biology 24:215-219.
Smith, P.A., K.H. Elliott, A.J. Gaston, H.G. Gilchrist. 2010. Has early ice clearance increased predation on breeding birds by polar bears? Polar Biology 33(8):1149-1153.
Smol, J., A. P. Wolfe, H. J. B. Birks, M. S. V. Douglas, V. J. Jomes, A. Korhola, R. Pienitz, K. Ruhland, S. Sorvari, D. Antoniades, S. J. Brooks, M. Fallu, M. Hughes, B. E. Keatley, T. E. Laing, N. Michelutti, L. Nazarova, M. Nyman, A. M. Paterson, B. Perren, R. Quinlan, M. Rautio, E. Saulnier, Talbot, S. Siitonen, N. Soloveva, J. Weckstrom, 2005. Climate-driven regime shifts in the biological communities of arctic lakes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 4397-4402.
Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33:411-521.
Speckman, S.G., V. Chernook, D.M. Burn, M.S. Udevitz, A.A. Kochnev, A. Vasilev, C.V. Jay, A. Lisovsky, A.S. Fischbach, and B.R. Benter. 2011. Results and evaluation of a survey to estimate Pacific walrus population size, 2006. Marine Mammal Science 27:514-553.
Stenhouse, G.B., L.J. Lee, K.G. Poole. 1988. Some characteristics of polar bears killed during conflicts with humans in the Northwest Territories, 1976-1986. Arctic 41:275-278.
73
Stirling, I. 2002. Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: a Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships Over Three Decades. Arctic 55(S1):S59-S76.
Stirling, I., N.A. Øritsland. 1995. Relationships between estimates of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) and polar bear (Ursus maritimus) populations in the Canadian Arctic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52(12):2594-2612.
Stirling, I., N.J. Lunn, J. Iacozza. 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic 52(3):294-306.
Stirling, I., T.G. Smith. 2004. Implications of warm temperatures and an unusual rain event for the survival of ringed seals on the coast of southeastern Baffin Island. Arctic 57(1):59-67.
Stirling, I., C.L. Parkinson. 2006. Possible effects of climatic warming on selected populations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59(3):261-275.
Stirling, I., A.E. Derocher. 2012. Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence. Glob Chang Biol 18(9):2694-2706. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 24501049.
Stroeve, J., M.M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, M. Serreze. 2007. Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster Than Forecast. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34(9):L09501.
Stroeve, J. C., T. Markus, L. Boisvert, J. Miller, and A. Barrett. 2014. Changes in Arctic melt season and implications for sea ice loss. Geophysical Research Letters 41:1216-1225.
Stroeve, J.C., V. Kattsov, A. Barrett, M. Serreze, T. Pavlova, M. Holland, W.N. Meier. 2012. Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations. Geophysical Research Letters 39(16). http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052676.
Thiemann, G.W., S.J. Iverson, I. Stirling. 2008. Polar bear diets and arctic marine food webs: insights from fatty acid analysis. Ecological Monographs 78(4):591-613. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000260310400006.
Towns, L., A. E. Derocher, I. Stirling, N. J. Lunn, and D. Hedman. 2009. Spatial and temporal patterns of problem polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba. Polar Biology 32:1529-1537.
U - Z
Udevitz, M.S., R.T. Taylor, J.L. Garlich-Miller, L.T. Quakenbush, J. Snyder. 2013. Potential population-level effects of increased haul-out-related mortality of Pacific walrus calves. Polar Biology 36:291-298.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010a. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus): Chukchi/Bering Seas Stock Assessment Report. Anchorage, Alaska. Department of the Interior, Marine Mammals Management. http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm /stock/stock.htm.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010b. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus): Southern Beaufort Sea Stock Assessment Report. Anchorage, Alaska. Department of the Interior,
74
Marine Mammals Management. http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/stock/ stock.htm.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens): Alaska stock assessment report. Anchorage, Alaska. Department of the Interior, Marine Mammals Management. http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/stock/ Revised_April_2014_Pacific_Walrus_SAR.pdf.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015a. Walrus. Marine Mammals Management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/ mmm/walrus/wmain.htm.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015b. Biological opinion for the Alaska Federal/State preparedness plan for response to oil & hazardous substance discharges/releases. Consultation with U.S. Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency. Anchorage U.S. Fish and Wildlife Field Office. http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/ endangered/pdf/2011-036%20Unified%20Plan%20Consultation_27Feb2014.FINAL.pdf.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Conservation Management Plan, Final. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Anchorage, Alaska. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/esa.htm#status_assessments.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017a. Memorandum to Chief, Marine Mammals Management Office–Region 7 Re: Section 7 Consultation on issuance of an IHA for Quintillion. July 7, 2017. Fairbank Fish and Wildlife Field Office. Fairbanks, Alaska.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017b. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Marine Mammals Management. Anchorage, Alaska. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/ esa.htm#status_ assessments.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017c. Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears in Alaska and Associated Federal Waters. Department of the Interior. Federal Register 82 FR 25304, June 1, 2017.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017d. Response to comments from the Marine Mammal Commission. Marine Mammals Management. Region 7. Anchorage, Alaska. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/ iha.htm.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017e. Response to comments from Environmental Review, Inc. Marine Mammals Management. Region 7. Anchorage, Alaska. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/ iha.htm.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017e. Response to comments from a Member of the Public. Marine Mammals Management. Region 7. Anchorage, Alaska. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/ iha.htm.
Wade, W. R. 1998. Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science 41:1-37.
75
Ware, J.V., K.D. Rode, J.F. Bromaghin, D.C. Douglas, R.R. Wilson, E.V. Regehr, S.C. Amstrup, G.M. Durner, A.M. Pagano, J. Olson. 2017. Habitat degradation affects the summer activity of polar bears. Oecologia: 1-13.
Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, J. Merrill. 2003. Factors Affecting the Responses of Marine Mammals to Acoustic Disturbance. Marine Technology Society Journal 37(4):6-15. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mts/mtsj/2003/00000037/00000004/ art00002.
Wassmann, P., C.M. Duarte, S. Agusti, M.K. Sejr. 2011. Footprints of climate change in the Arctic marine ecosystem. Global Change Biology 17(2):1235-1249.
Watts, P., P. Ratson. 1989. Tour operator avoidance of deterrent use and harassment of polar bears. Pages 189- 193 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest Territories Department of Renewable Resources, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada.
Watts, P.D., K.L. Ferguson, B.A. Draper. 1991. Energetic output of subadult polar bears (Ursus maritimus): resting, disturbance and locomotion. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology 98(2):191-193.
Weston, D.E. 1971. Intensity-range relations in oceanographic acoustics. Journal of Sound and vibration 18(2):271IN3283-282287.
Whiteman, J.P., H.J. Harlow, G.M. Durner, R. Anderson-Sprecher, S.E. Albeke, E.V. Regehr, S.C. Amstrup, M. Ben-David. 2015. Summer declines in activity and body temperature offer polar bears limited energy savings. Science 349(6245):295.
Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., Lunn, N., Obbard, M., Regehr, E. & Thiemann, G. 2015. Ursus maritimus. e.T22823A14871490. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T22823A14871490.en.
Wilson, R. R., E. V. Regehr, K. D. Rode, and M. St Martin. 2016. Invariant polar bear habitat selection during a period of sea ice loss. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 283:20160380.
Zhang, X.D., J.E. Walsh. 2006. Toward a Seasonally Ice-Covered Arctic Ocean: Scenarios From the IPCC AR4 Model Simulations. Journal of Climate 19(9):1730-1747. [Top]