Polar Bear, Endangered Species
Photograph Attribution: US Fish and Wildlife Service
Clickable link to view Response to Comments Provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service:
https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/walrus/pdf/Response%20to%20ERI%20.pdf
Response ERI IHA Comments Mr. Price People
Mr. Price,
Please find attached the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service response to the Environmental Review, Inc's comments and recommendations on the proposed incidental harassment authorization for Pacific walruses and polar bears regarding the Quintillion Subsea Operation, LLC subsea cable-laying activities.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Christopher Putnam at (907) 786-3844 or via emailThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Thank you,
Tess
Tess Sprau
Administrative Assistant
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
Marine Mammals Management
1011 E. Tudor Road, MS-341
Anchorage, AK 99503
(907) 786-3800
FAX: (907) 786-3816
Public Comments Processing
Attention: Ms. Kimberly Klein
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 341
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Dear Ms. Klein:
Environmental Review, Inc. has reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Draft Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears During the 2017 Quintillion Fiber Optic Cable Project dated May 2017 and has the following comments:
1) This report only discussed walruses and polar bears. Since other protected species including whales were considered in a separate report under the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, that should be discussed in this report.
2) Page iii Executive Summary section - paragraph 1 discusses a determination related to an incidental take permit under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), since the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements apply for polar bears, that should be mentioned here.
3) Page iii – Executive Summary section – paragraph 3 discusses permissible methods of take and mitigation measures. Since ice management and ice breaking activities may cause significant habitat disruption, more explicit controls and monitoring by the USFWS should occur. Oversight of all project activities should occur by USFWS officials.
4) Page iii Executive Summary section paragraph 4 – The estimated takes of 250 walruses is based on inadequate and outdated data of walrus population surveys; this report should recommend updating the walrus population estimates before issuing a permit.
5) Page iv Executive Summary section - Paragraph 2 states that the final Environmental Assessment report will/may include additional conditions to mitigate impacts. Please add the following conditions: prohibit the use of ice management/ice breakers, add onboard USFWS personnel to monitor activities, conduct updated population surveys for walruses, conduct a reasonable alternatives evaluation which is absent from this document, consider using smaller less noisy equipment as part of mitigation measures.
6) Page vii – the Table of Contents for chapter 2 Proposed Actions and Alternatives shows only two alternatives (a no-action alternative and a presumptive alternative) and a listing of alternatives not considered practicable. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA 16U.S.C.A section 1539 section 10 (2)(A)(iii)) no permit will be issued unless alternatives are considered and why such alternatives are not being utilized. Therefore the format of this report circumvented the alternatives evaluation required under the ESA; so this report should be rewritten to include a reasonable evaluation of alternatives.
7) Page vii - Table of Contents section 2.3 Alternatives Considered Not Feasible or Practicable - The use of the words “feasible:” and “practicable” here are inappropriate because the activities described are valid mitigation activities. Those (see page 18 of the report to see section 2.3) include: work shutdown radii, work only in free water, use passive acoustic monitoring, use a 120 dB threshold , and employing sound source verification are all valid mitigation procedures which should be followed. This section should be replaced with alternative evaluation section which considers these activities.
8) Page 1 paragraph 1 – the testing of 1183 miles of cable is planned, since this involves travelling large distances, how will USFWS ensure that the speeds of the ships and equipment will conform to planned low speeds?
9) Page 2 paragraph 2 bullet 3– According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40CFR1500-1508 directs the USFWS to evaluate alternatives including a no-action alternative. Since this report only considered a no-action alternative and a presumptive alternative and listed potential mitigation measures as impracticable, how does this report meet the requirements under 40CFR1500-1508?
10) Page 3 at the top of the page – the purpose of the Draft Environmental Assessment report is described as fulfilling the requirements under the MMPA including the amount of takes and whether those are negligible. Here there is a lack of data to make a determination. Under the later section 3.2 Biological Environment the population estimate is based on a survey which estimated the walrus population at 129,000 (and a 95% confidence interval of 55,000 to 507,000). That is a statistically unreliable range which warrants that a new survey should be conducted (according to the 2000 USFWS workshop, the upper and lower range should vary only 30% from the estimate). This is most significant when estimating the percentage of takes on the entire stock. Due to these deficiencies, the estimate of the number of takes and whether or not the level of takes on the population is negligible cannot be determined within an acceptable degree of accuracy so a determination by the USFWS that the impacts are negligible (or considered “small numbers”) should not be made. An updated population survey for walruses should be completed.
11) Page 5 Endangered Species Act section, paragraph 2 – Listing of walruses as endangered species is likely to occur in September 2017, which occurs during the time which this authorization is planned to cover. Shouldn’t there be some discussion of whether or not this will cause additional requirements to kick in which need to be considered now?
12) Page 6 section 1.3.3 National Environmental Policy Act section paragraph 1 – for the reasons stated above in comment number 10 above shouldn’t a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) be postponed until such time that an accurate population survey of walruses is completed? And shouldn’t an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared to support the USFWS determinations?
13) Page 8 section 2.1 discusses that penalties will be assessed if any intentional taking of species occurs. However there is no reasonable enforcement mechanism described to accomplish that. Shouldn’t monitoring procedures by USFWS associated with each proposed mitigation measure be explained?
14) Page 15 Adaptive Measures section – a) each adaptive measure should be monitored and enforced by USFWS; b) these adaptive measures to monitor for species do not seem to be achievable unless there is aerial (e.g. drone) and thermal imaging support. Explain how these activities will realistically occur.
15) Page 16 Reporting Requirements section – this section should provide more details about how regulatory oversight by the USFWS with personnel in the field will occur. In addition to a final report due 90 days after completion of the fieldwork, this section should require more frequent reports (e.g. weekly) in order to assess the adequacy of the monitoring and mitigation programs.
16) When a response-to-comments document is available please email it to me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or mail to the address below.
Sincerely yours, Tom Price – Director, Environmental Review, Inc. P.O. Box 2756, Berkeley, CA 94702 www.envreview.org