Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Shallow Hazards Survey in the Chukchi Sea, Alaska, 46729-46753 [2011-19663]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46729-46753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19663]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA396


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Shallow Hazards Survey in the 
Chukchi Sea, Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 
regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an 
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Statoil USA E&P Inc. 
(Statoil) to take, by harassment, small numbers of 13 species of marine 
mammals incidental to shallow hazards and geotechnical surveys in the 
Chukchi Sea, Alaska, during the 2011 Arctic open-water season.

DATES: Effective August 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Inquiry for information on the incidental take authorization 
should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation 
and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A 
copy of the application containing a list of the references used in 
this document, NMFS' 2010 Environmental Assessment (EA), 2011 
Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA), Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI), and the IHA may be obtained by writing to the address 
specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
    Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, 
during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401 or Brad Smith, NMFS, Alaska Region, 
(907) 271-3023.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, 
the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are 
made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to 
harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the 
public for review.
    Authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will 
have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or 
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible 
methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.
    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as:

    An impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to 
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except 
with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines 
``harassment'' as:

    Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 
[Level B harassment].

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS 
review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment 
period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of 
marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS 
must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

Summary of Request

    NMFS received an application on March 1, 2011, from Statoil for the 
taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to shallow hazards 
site surveys and soil investigations (geotechnical boreholes) in the 
Chukchi Sea, Alaska, during the 2011 open-water season. After 
addressing comments from NMFS, Statoil modified its application and 
submitted a revised application on April 19, 2011. The April 19, 2011, 
application was the one available for public comment (see ADDRESSES) 
and considered by NMFS for the IHA.
    The shallow hazards and site clearance surveys would use a towed 
airgun cluster consisting of four, 10-in\3\ airguns with a ~600 m 
(1,969 ft) towed hydrophone streamer, as well as additional lower-
powered and higher frequency survey equipment for collecting 
bathymetric and shallow sub-bottom data. The proposed survey will take 
place on and near Statoil's leases in the Chukchi Sea, covering a total 
area of ~665 km\2\ located ~240 km (150 mi) west of Barrow and ~165 km 
(103 mi) northwest of Wainwright, in water depths of ~30-50 m (100-165 
ft).
    The geotechnical soil investigations will take place at prospective 
drilling locations on Statoil's leases and leases jointly owned with 
ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. (CPAI). All cores will be either 5.3 cm or 
7.1 cm (2.1 in. or 2.8 in.) in diameter (depending on soil

[[Page 46730]]

type), and those collected at prospective drilling locations will be up 
to 100 m (328 ft) in depth. The maximum total number of samples 
collected as part of the drilling location and site survey program will 
be ~29.
    Statoil intends to conduct these marine surveys during the 2011 
Arctic open-water season (July through November). Impacts to marine 
mammals may occur from noise produced from active acoustic sources 
(including airguns) used in the surveys.

Description of the Specified Activity

    Statoil acquired 16 leases in the Chukchi Sea during Lease Sale 193 
held in February 2008. The leased areas are located ~240 km (150 mi) 
west of Barrow and ~160 km (~100 mi) northwest of Wainwright. During 
the open-water season of 2010, Statoil conducted a 3D seismic survey 
over its lease holdings and the surrounding area. The data gathered 
during that survey are currently being analyzed in order to determine 
potential well locations on the leases. These analyses will be 
completed prior to commencement of the site survey program. During the 
open-water season of 2011, Statoil proposes to conduct shallow hazards 
and site clearance surveys (site surveys) and soil investigations 
(geotechnical boreholes).
    The operations will be performed from two different vessels. 
Shallow hazards surveys will be conducted from the M/V DUKE, while 
geotechnical soil investigations will be conducted from the M/V FUGRO 
SYNERGY (see Statoil's application for vessel specifications). Both 
vessels will mobilize from Dutch Harbor in late July and arrive in the 
Chukchi Sea to begin work on or after August 1. Allowing for poor 
weather days, operations are expected to continue into late September 
or early October. However, if weather permits and all planned 
activities have not been completed, operations may continue as late as 
November 15.
    The site survey work on Statoil's leases will require approximately 
23 days to complete. Geotechnical soil investigations on Statoil leases 
and on leases jointly held with CPAI will require ~14 days of 
operations.

Shallow Hazards and Site Clearance Surveys

    Shallow hazards site surveys are designed to collect bathymetric 
and shallow sub-seafloor data that allow the evaluation of potential 
shallow faults, gas zones, and archeological features at prospective 
exploration drilling locations, as required by the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). Data are 
typically collected using multiple types of acoustic equipment. During 
the site surveys, Statoil proposes to use the following acoustic 
sources: 4 x 10 in\3\ airgun cluster, single 10 in\3\ airgun, Kongsberg 
SBP3000 sub-bottom profiler, GeoAcoustics 160D side-scan sonar, and a 
Kongsberg EM2040 multi-beam echosounder. The acoustic characteristics 
(including operating frequencies and estimated source levels) of all 
active sources are described in the Federal Register notice for the 
proposed IHA (76 FR 30110; May 24, 2011). That information has not 
changed and is therefore not repeated here.

Geotechnical Soil Investigations

    Geotechnical soil investigations are performed to collect detailed 
data on seafloor sediments and geological structure to a maximum depth 
of 100 m (328 ft). These data are then evaluated to help determine the 
suitability of the site as a drilling location. Statoil has contracted 
with Fugro who will use the vessel M/V FUGRO SYNERGY to complete the 
planned soil investigations. Three to four bore holes will be collected 
at each of up to 5 prospective drilling locations on Statoil's leases, 
and up to 3 boreholes may be completed at each of up to 3 potential 
drilling locations on leases jointly owned with CPAI. This would result 
in a maximum total of 29 bore holes to be completed as part of the 
geotechnical soil investigation program. The FUGRO SYNERGY operates a 
Kongsberg EA600 Echosounder and uses a Kongsberg 500 high precision 
acoustic positioning (HiPAP) system for precise vessel positioning 
while completing the boreholes. The acoustic characteristics (including 
operating frequencies and estimated source levels) of all active 
sources, as well as the sounds produced during soil investigation 
sampling, are described in the Federal Register notice for the proposed 
IHA (76 FR 30110; May 24, 2011). That information has not changed and 
is therefore not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Statoil published in 
the Federal Register on May 24, 2011 (76 FR 30110). That notice 
described, in detail, Statoil's proposed activity, the marine mammal 
species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated 
effects on marine mammals and the availability of marine mammals for 
subsistence uses. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS 
received three comment letters from the following: The Marine Mammal 
Commission (Commission); the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC); 
and Alaska Wilderness League (AWL), Center for Biological Diversity, 
Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Oceana, Pacific Environment, and Sierra Club (collectively ``AWL''). 
The AEWC submitted a copy of the 2011 Conflict Avoidance Agreement 
(CAA), since Statoil declined to sign the CAA.
    Any comments specific to Statoil's application that address the 
statutory and regulatory requirements or findings NMFS must make to 
issue an IHA are addressed in this section of the Federal Register 
notice.

MMPA Concerns

    Comment 1: AEWC states that Statoil's IHA application NMFS released 
is incomplete because it did not contain a copy of the Plan of 
Cooperation (POC). AEWC points out that Statoil stated that it ``is 
developing a Plan of Cooperation (POC) for their proposed 2011 
activities.'' (Statoil IHA Application at page 51), and since Statoil 
did not provide the POC or any detail on the measures to be adopted in 
compliance with 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)(iii), NMFS cannot make the 
determination required under the MMPA. AEWC further points out that 
NMFS has previously stated that ``[i]t should be understood that the 
POC is required by NMFS's implementing regulations to be submitted as 
part of the industry's IHA application'' (74 FR 55368, 55393; October 
27, 2009). AEWC requests that NMFS enforce the requirement that Statoil 
set forth, in its application, the proposed measures employed to 
prevent conflicts with subsistence activities.
    Response: Although NMFS agrees with AEWC's statement that a POC is 
essential for making the determination for granting an IHA to the 
industry, it is not used to determine the completeness of an IHA 
application. A complete IHA application should address all fourteen 
questions in NMFS' marine mammal incidental take application 
guidelines, which can be found at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#apply. Concerning the POC, as stated in item 12 of the 
application guideline, the applicant ``must submit either a `plan of 
cooperation' or information that identifies what measures have been 
taken and/or will be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the 
availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.'' In the case of 
Statoil's IHA application, NMFS believes that the company provided 
detailed information that identified what measures have been

[[Page 46731]]

taken and will be taken to minimize any adverse effects to subsistence 
harvesting of marine mammals, such as maintaining an open and 
transparent process with all stakeholders throughout the duration of 
its activities in the Chukchi Sea, identifying transit routes and 
timing to avoid other subsistence use areas and communicating with 
coastal communities before operating in or passing through these areas. 
In addition, Statoil completed the early phase of the POC process for 
the proposed project by meeting with the North Slope Borough Department 
of Wildlife Management (December 2010) and the AEWC (mini-convention in 
Barrow, February 2011), and arranged to visit and hold public meetings 
in the affected Chukchi Sea villages, including Pt. Hope, Pt. Lay, 
Wainwright, and Barrow during the week of March 21, 2011. NMFS 
determined that these activities showed that Statoil was in the process 
of finalizing its POC with the Native communities, therefore NMFS 
determined that Statoil's application was complete. Subsequently on 
June 20, 2011, NMFS received a draft POC with detailed information on 
the POC process. On July 14, 2011, NMFS received the final POC from 
Statoil.

Impacts to Marine Mammals

    Comment 2: AWL states that NMFS's uniform marine mammal harassment 
threshold for impulsive sounds does not take into account the 
documented reactions of specific species found in the Arctic to much 
lower received levels. The AWL argues by providing an example that 
harbor porpoises have been shown to be exceptionally sensitive to 
noise, and NMFS has used 120 dB as the appropriate threshold when 
authorizing marine mammal take for Navy sonar activities. In addition, 
the AWL states, by referring to Southall et al. (2007), that ``a 2007 
study found that for migrating bowheads `the onset of significant 
behavioral disturbance from multiple pulses occurred at [received 
levels] around 120 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa[.]' ''. The AWL concludes that ``the 
2007 study in fact determined that the reactions of migrating bowhead 
whales to sounds as low as 120 dB had a `higher potential' for 
affecting foraging, reproduction, or survival rates.''
    Response: NMFS does not agree with AWL's assessment on acoustic 
effects of marine mammals. The 120 dB threshold for the onset of 
behavioral harassment for harbor porpoise by Navy sonar activities is 
limited to exposure to mid- and high-frequency sonar signals, which are 
defined as sound with dominant frequency at 1-10 kHz and above 10 kHz, 
respectively. This is because harbor porpoise is considered a ``high 
frequency cetacean'' (Southall et al. 2007), and, therefore, is more 
sensitive to noise exposure at higher frequency spectra. Sounds 
produced during marine seismic surveys have most of their energy 
concentrated at the lower end of the frequency spectra, which is 
largely outside of the harbor porpoises' hearing threshold (Andersen 
1970; Kastelein et al. 2002). Therefore, NMFS believes that it is 
scientifically justifiable to use received level at 120 dB as the 
threshold for behavioral harassment for harbor porpoises exposed to 
mid- and high-frequency Navy sonar, but it is not appropriate to use 
this received level as the threshold for behavioral harassment when 
exposed to seismic sounds.
    Regarding its comment on bowhead disturbances when exposed to 
seismic sound at received level of 120 dB, AWL incorrectly cited the 
reference in Southall et al. (2007) as ``a 2007 study.'' In fact, the 
reference in Southall et al. (2007) that AWL refers to was a conference 
abstract presented at the 1999 Meeting of the Acoustical Society of 
America by Richardson et al. (1999) titled ``Displacement of Migrating 
Bowhead Whales by Sounds from Seismic Surveys in Shallow Waters of the 
Beaufort Sea.'' The study was conducted in the summer months between 
1996 and 1998 in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, during 
seismic surveys with 6-16 airguns and total volumes of 560-1,500 in\3\. 
As stated in the abstract, ``[w]estward autumn migration of bowhead 
whales near and offshore of the exploration area was monitored by 
aerial surveys flown daily, weather permitting, during the three 
seasons. Aerial survey data from days with and without airgun 
operations were compared.'' The authors observed that ``[m]ost bowheads 
avoided the area within 20 km of the operating airguns; bowheads were 
common there on days without airgun operations.'' In addition, the 
authors stated that bowhead whale ``sighting rates just beyond the 
avoidance zone were higher on days with airgun operations. Broadband 
received levels of airgun pulses at 20 km were typically 120-130 dB re: 
1 [micro]Pa (rms over pulse duration).'' Based on this description, 
NMFS concludes that the displacement of bowhead whales by seismic 
surveys constitutes temporary avoidance behavior during ``days with 
airgun operations,'' and these whales seem to avoid an area where 
received levels were about 120-130 dB. The authors did not state that 
they observed ``significant behavioral disturbance,'' nor did they 
report a disruption of behavioral patterns, either of which could be an 
indication of Level B harassment.
    In addition, these minor course changes occurred during migration 
and have not been seen at other times of the year and during other 
activities. Therefore, NMFS does not believe that minor course 
corrections during a migration equate to ``take'' under the MMPA. This 
conclusion is based on controlled exposure experiments conducted on 
migrating gray whales exposed to the U.S. Navy's low frequency sonar 
(LFA) sources (Tyack 2009). When the source was placed in the middle of 
the migratory corridor, the whales were observed deflecting around the 
source during their migration. However, such minor deflection is 
considered not to be biologically significant. To show the contextual 
nature of this minor behavioral modification, recent monitoring studies 
of Canadian seismic operations indicate that when, not migrating, but 
involved in feeding, bowhead whales do not move away from a noise 
source at an SPL of 160 dB. Therefore, while bowheads may avoid an area 
of 20 km (12.4 mi) around a noise source, when that determination 
requires a post-survey computer analysis to find that bowheads have 
made a 1 or 2 degree course change, NMFS believes that does not rise to 
the level of a ``take.'' NMFS therefore continues to estimate 
``takings'' under the MMPA from impulse noises, such as seismic, as 
being at a distance of 160 dB (re 1 [micro]Pa) from the source. 
Although it is possible that marine mammals could react to any sound 
levels detectable above the ambient noise level within the animals' 
respective frequency response range, this does not mean that such 
animals would react in a biologically significant way.
    Therefore, unless and until an improved approach is developed and 
peer-reviewed, NMFS will continue to use the 160-dB threshold for 
determining the level of take of marine mammals by Level B harassment 
for impulse noise (such as from airguns).
    Comment 3: In reference to the impact analysis NMFS provided in the 
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (76 FR 30110; May 24, 
2011), AWL states that the existing science does not support strictly 
distinguishing impulse and non-impulse noise, and that NMFS recognizes 
that over long distances (tens of kilometers), impulse sounds can 
become ``stretched'' out. Further, AWL refers to the peer-review panel 
report for this year's Open Water Meeting noting

[[Page 46732]]

that phenomenon and concluding that sounds from airguns ``should not be 
treated as truly impulsive when received at ranges where sound 
propagation is known to remove the impulsive nature of these signals.'' 
AWL concludes that ``a uniform 160-dB harassment threshold is not 
justified by either the science or the standards imposed by the MMPA. 
And, without an appropriate threshold, NMFS cannot begin to accurately 
gauge the extent of marine mammal take from Statoil's operations.''
    Response: Although NMFS agrees with AWL that at long distances an 
impulse acoustic signal will lose its pulse feature by stretching its 
duration due to multipath propagation, these signals (or noises) are 
still fundamentally different from other non-impulse noise sources such 
as those from vibratory pile driving, drilling, and dredging based on 
the following characteristics:
    First, the elongated pulse signals from the airgun array at far 
distances are caused by multipath propagation in a reverberant 
environment (Greene and Richardson 1988; Richardson et al. 1995; Madsen 
et al. 2002; Lurton 2002), which is different from other non-pulse 
signals at closer distances, which is composed of mostly direct sound. 
The reverberation part of the sound in the ocean behaves differently 
compared to the direct sound and early surface and bottom reflections 
from the perspective of the receiver. The direct sound and early 
reflections follow the inverse square law, with the addition of 
absorption effects in the case of early reflections, and so their 
amplitude varies with distance. However the reverberant part of the 
sound remains relatively constant up to a large distance with the 
position of the receiver. Therefore, as distance increases from the 
source, the component of reverberant sounds increases against the 
direct sound. In addition, the reverberant energy is less directional 
and is distributed more uniformly around the ambient environment of the 
animal. As shown in human psychoacoustics, these characteristics in a 
reverberant field provide distance cues to the listener as to how far 
away the source is located (Howard and Angus 2006). Therefore, at a 
distance where the airgun signals have been ``stretched'' to non-pulse, 
the receiving animals would be able to correctly perceive that these 
sounds are coming from far away, and would thus be less likely to be 
affected behaviorally as behavior responses are not solely dependent on 
received levels. Other factors such as distance to the source, movement 
of the source, source characteristics, and the receiver's (i.e., 
animal's) age, sex, motivation states, and prior experience, etc. 
probably play more significant roles in determining the responses of 
the animals that are being exposed to lower levels of noises than 
solely the received sound level.
    Second, even though during horizontal propagation, the initial 
short pulse could be ``stretched'' from milliseconds when emitted to 
about 0.25-0.5 second long at a few kilometers in shallow water 
(Richardson et al. 1995), the noise duration is still very short when 
compared to those ``conventional'' non-pulse noise sources (vibratory 
pile driving, drilling, and dredging, etc.) for which NMFS applies a 
120 dB threshold for assessing behavioral harassment. The empirical 
measurements of a 3,000 in\3\ airgun array received signal 
characteristics showed that its pulse duration was stretched to 0.2 
second at approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mi), to 0.5 second at approximately 
10 km (6.2 mi), and to about 1.8 seconds at 80 km (50 mi) from the 
source (O'Neill et al. 2011). Based on the airgun array's firing rate 
of 0.1 Hz (1 shot every 10 seconds), the duty cycle was only 18% for 
the signal at 80 km (50 mi) (1.8 seconds on for every 10 seconds). 
Conversely, the ``conventional'' non-pulse noises from vibratory pile 
driving, drilling, and dredging typically last much longer (minutes to 
hours) with very brief (seconds for vibratory pile driving) intervals.
    Therefore, NMFS does not agree that it is appropriate to treat 
elongated airgun pulses at long distances as a ``conventional'' non-
pulse signal and apply the 120 dB behavioral response threshold to that 
sound source.
    Comment 4: AWL states that NMFS' approach to determining take for 
Statoil's surveying during the bowhead fall migration is not 
supportable because the proposed authorization does not adequately take 
into account that Statoil's fall surveying will take place within a 
migratory corridor. AWL argues that ``by relying on density without 
sufficiently considering the overlap of ensonified areas, it assumes 
that migratory animals remain relatively stationary from one day to the 
next, despite Statoil's operations exposing the same areas of the ocean 
to elevated sound level at very different times, days or even weeks 
apart.'' AWL further states that ``NMFS' calculations are premised on 
the notion that a bowhead whale exposed, for example, on day 15 during 
the course of the survey remains stationary and is the same whale 
exposed when the vessel travels near the area again on day 23 during 
the detailed survey, amounting to only a single harassed whale. Such a 
result does not reflect the reality of whales moving through the 
surveying area on their way to wintering grounds in the Bering Sea.'' 
AWL points out that ``in the past, NMFS has avoided this problem by 
calculating the ensonified area based on the amount of linear surveying 
line, rather than by extending the boundaries of the area to be 
surveyed.''
    Response: NMFS does not agree with AWL's statement that our take 
estimates for bowhead whales during Statoil's shallow hazards survey in 
the Chukchi Sea are ``not supportable.'' First, evidence has shown that 
the bowhead whale fall migratory route through the Chukchi Sea is more 
spread out than in the Beaufort Sea, where whales tend to have a more 
confined migratory corridor due to ice conditions. In a recent 
satellite tagging study, Quakenbush et al. (2010) concluded from GPS 
data that bowhead whales do not spend much time in the north-central 
Chukchi Sea, near Statoil's 2011 proposed shallow hazards survey. 
Kernel densities from the study showed that areas with the highest 
probability of bowhead use from September to December were near Point 
Barrow and the northeast Chukotka coast; the area along the east coast 
of Wrangel Island also had a moderate probability of use (Quakenbush et 
al. 2010). In addition, movements and behavior of tagged bowhead whales 
in this study indicated that the greatest potential for disturbance 
from industrial activities is near Point Barrow in September and 
October and in the lease area in September. Lastly, Statoil's shallow 
hazards survey is scheduled to begin on August 1, 2011, and would 
require approximately 23 days to complete. Therefore, there is the 
potential for Statoil to complete their entire operation prior to the 
time when bowhead whales typically begin entering the Chukchi Sea in 
the fall (i.e., mid-September). Thus NMFS determined that the marine 
mammal density data provided in Statoil's IHA application for this 
period are overestimated. And to compensate for the overestimation due 
to the lower than actual density, NMFS opted not to consider overlaps 
of the ensonified area.
    Additionally, it should be noted that this is not the first time 
that this approach has been used in estimating takes from shallow 
hazards and 3D seismic surveys. When airgun activity, as part of a 
shallow hazards survey is ongoing continuously after ramping up, it is 
expected that nearly all bowhead whales would avoid the areas 
ensonified to >160 dB. This would

[[Page 46733]]

mean that migrating whales passing through the region would likely 
avoid the immediate area around the activities, and thus not be 
``taken'' repeatedly by exposure to sounds >160 dB.
    Alternatively, bowhead take numbers can be calculated based on the 
migratory animals' daily average multiplied by the duration in days 
when seismic activities are ongoing, as was typically done to estimate 
bowhead whale takes in the Beaufort Sea during their migration. 
However, no such data are available for migratory bowheads in the 
Chukchi Sea, therefore, this method cannot be applied.
    Regarding the method NMFS used to estimate the take by calculating 
the ensonified area based on the amount of linear surveying line, 
rather than by extending the boundaries of the area to be surveyed, 
this method is used for 2D seismic surveys where there is no 
overlapping ensonified area. Using this methodology to calculate for 
overlapping ensonified area would result in an unrealistically large 
area (in some cases, it could be larger than the entire Chukchi Sea) 
being treated as the affected area, which NMFS does not think is 
appropriate.
    Comment 5: AWL states that NMFS must include the effects from all 
of Statoil's equipment, not only the noise from the airguns (surveying) 
and ship thrusters (drilling). AWL points out that this year's peer-
review panel found that Statoil's other acoustic sources are 
``relatively powerful and operate in the acoustic band of many if not 
most marine mammals.'' AWL further states that although NMFS has 
proposed that Statoil conduct field measurements for all its equipment 
in order to determine whether additional safety zones are required, 
this cannot cure the failure to accurately determine in advance the 
number of marine mammals that may be harassed by Statoil's activities. 
AWL states that NMFS should further consider the fact that Statoil's 
two exploratory activities (surveying and drilling) may take place in 
close proximity to one another, each using a variety of noise-producing 
equipment that could contribute to adverse synergistic effects.
    Response: NMFS agrees with AWL that all of Statoil's active 
acoustic equipment must be included and analyzed for their potential 
effects on marine mammals. In its Federal Register notice of proposed 
IHA (76 FR 30110; May 24, 2011) and the SEA, NMFS provided a detailed 
description and analysis of these active acoustic sources. A list of 
these sources with their frequency bandwidth and modeled/known maximum 
source level are provided in Table 1-3 of the SEA. These sources 
include the Kongsberg EA600 echosounder, GeoAcoustics 160D side-scan 
sonar, Kongsberg SBP300 sub-bottom profiler, Kongsberg EM2040 multibeam 
echosounder, and Kongsberg HiPAP 500. All these active sources are 
expected to have maximum source levels below those of the airgun array 
except the GeoAcoustics 160D side-scan sonar, of which the maximum 
source level is approximately 233 dB re 1 [mu]Pa @ 1m. However, since 
this equipment operates at frequencies of 114 and 410 kHz, the modeled 
isopleths drop down to 160 dB at about 453 and 108 m (1,486 and 354 ft) 
from the source, and to 120 dB at about 1,177 and 221 m (3,861.5 and 
725 ft) from the source for each of these two frequencies, 
respectively, when high-frequency absorption is taken into 
consideration. These distances are well within the modeled 160 dB and 
120 dB zones for the airgun array, which is at 2,250 m and 39,000 m 
(1.4 mi and 24 mi) for received levels of 160 and 120 dB, respectively. 
Therefore, the acoustic footprints from all other active sources are 
contained within that of the airgun array, and no additional take from 
these sources is expected.
    Nevertheless, as mentioned by AWL and described in detail in the 
proposed IHA (76 FR 30110; May 24, 2011), Statoil will be required to 
conduct sound source verification (SSV) tests for all acoustic 
equipment used during the proposed shallow hazards survey. The 
empirical measurements will further show the presence or absence of 
low-frequency side-lobes and will be used to refine the exclusion 
zones, which are required for implementing monitoring and mitigation 
measures, as needed.
    NMFS is aware of the relative locations of Statoil's two 
exploratory activities (shallow hazards survey and geotechnical survey) 
and has conducted appropriate analyses concerning sources and impacts 
from both activities. These analyses are described in detail in the 
proposed IHA (76 FR 30110; May 24, 2011) and the SEA. Please refer to 
those documents for that discussion.

Mitigation Measures

    Comment 6: AWL states that ``NMFS should consider a safety zone 
specific to cow-calf pairs'' to provide additional protective measures 
to address uncertainties regarding impacts on ``bowhead cow-calf pairs 
and aggregations of whales.''
    Response: Although it has been suggested that female baleen whales 
with calves ``show a heightened response to noise and disturbance,'' 
there is no evidence that such ``heightened response'' is biologically 
significant and constitutes a ``take'' under the MMPA. Nevertheless, in 
the past NMFS has required a 120-dB safety zone for migrating bowhead 
cow/calf pairs to be implemented (see Federal Register notice for 
proposed IHA to Shell; 75 FR 22708; May 18, 2010). However, in the 
Chukchi Sea, the migratory corridor for bowhead whales is wider and 
more open, thus the 120-dB ensonified zone would not impede bowhead 
whale migration. The animals would be able to swim around the 
ensonified area. Additionally, NMFS has not imposed a requirement to 
conduct aerial monitoring of the 120-dB safety zone for the occurrence 
of four or more cow-calf pairs in the Chukchi Sea because it is not 
practicable. Especially for Statoil's proposed shallow hazards survey, 
NMFS determined that monitoring the 120-dB zone of influence was not 
necessary in the Chukchi Sea because there would not be the level of 
effort by these surveys (i.e., a small 120-dB zone of about 39,000 m 
radius). This provides cow/calf pairs with sufficient ability to move 
around the seismic source without significant effort.

Monitoring Measures

    Comment 7: The Commission recommends that prior to granting the 
requested authorization, NMFS provide additional justification for its 
preliminary determination that the proposed monitoring program will be 
sufficient to detect, with a high level of confidence, all marine 
mammals within or entering the identified Level B harassment zones.
    Response: For this action, marine mammal monitoring serves two 
primary purposes. One purpose (referred to as mitigation monitoring) is 
to trigger mitigation measures--so that when a marine mammal is sighted 
within or entering the identified 180 or 190-dB exclusion zones, 
appropriate measures (speed/course change, power-down, or shutdown of 
sound sources) can be implemented, thus minimizing the likelihood that 
marine mammals are exposed to sound levels that have been associated 
with injurious effects. The other purpose is to collect data regarding 
the behavior and numbers of marine mammals detected within the larger 
160-dB zone, which can be used both to refine Level B take estimates 
and to add to our understanding of the nature and scale of marine 
mammal behavioral responses to this activity. In the Federal Register 
notice for the proposed IHA (76 FR 30110; May 24, 2011), NMFS provided 
a thorough analysis of the proposed monitoring

[[Page 46734]]

measures and made a preliminary determination, based on the modality 
that is proposed to be utilized for monitoring, prior years' marine 
mammal visual monitoring measures as reported in the 90-day reports and 
comprehensive reports for seismic surveys in the Arctic, and the small 
exclusion zones (50 m [164 ft] from the source to where received levels 
would be at 190 dB and above, and 190 m [623 ft] from the source to 
where received levels would be at 180 dB and above) anticipated during 
the proposed Statoil shallow hazards surveys. The analysis led NMFS to 
conclude that the proposed monitoring program will be sufficient to 
detect, with a high level of confidence, nearly all marine mammals 
within or entering the identified 180 and 190 dB exclusion zone to 
implement mitigation measures to prevent Level A harassment (injury).
    The identified Level B harassment zone for Statoil's proposed 
shallow hazards survey is modeled at 2,250 m (1.4 mi) from the source. 
This distance is believed to be within reasonable range for visual 
detection based on prior years' marine mammal monitoring during seismic 
surveys in the Arctic (Aerts et al. 2008; Hauser et al. 2008; 
Brueggeman 2009; Ireland et al. 2009; Reiser et al. 2010; 2011; Blees 
et al. 2011). In addition, NMFS worked with Statoil on the 
implementation of recommendations from the independent peer-review 
panel of Statoil's monitoring plan and included a list of monitoring 
measures recommended by the panel in the IHA. These measures that will 
increase detectability include: (1) Maximizing the time spent looking 
at the water and guarding the exclusion zones; (2) using ``big eye'' 
binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150 power) from high perches on large, stable 
platforms; (3) pairing the use of ``big eyes'' with naked eye 
searching; and (4) using the best possible positions for observing 
(e.g., outside and as high on the vessel as possible), taking into 
account weather and other working conditions. All these measures will 
further increase marine mammal detectability within and around the 
zones of influence for Level B harassment.
    Although it may be difficult to detect all marine mammals that are 
within or entering the larger 160-dB Level B harassment zone, these 
observations will be corrected for animals undetected in the far field 
and used to refine post-activity take estimates, which are then 
reported in the 90-day report. Additionally, behavioral observations 
within this zone are reported and more generally contribute to our 
understanding of how marine mammals behaviorally respond to seismic 
surveys.
    Comment 8: AWL states that the IHA must prescribe the ``means of 
effecting the least practicable impact'' on a species or stock and its 
habitat, therefore, AWL argues, NMFS should also determine whether 
there are further monitoring methods available, such as manned or 
unmanned aerial surveys. Citing the peer-review panel report on open 
water monitoring plans, AWL states that other far-field monitoring, 
such as the use of scout vessels, passive acoustic platforms, and 
satellites, should be studied as well. AWL argues that ``in order to 
mitigate for some of the difficulties that arise from relying on visual 
observation, NMFS should consider restricting airgun operations to 
times in which the safety zones are visible to marine monitors,'' and 
that ``Statoil should not operate in conditions--such as darkness, fog, 
or rough seas--in which the observers are unable to ensure that the 
designated safety zones are free of marine mammals.''
    Response: During preparation of the SEA, NMFS considered several 
additional technologies that could be used to enhance marine mammal 
monitoring. These new technologies include the use of unmanned aerial 
vehicles (UAVs), passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), and active acoustic 
monitoring (AAM) for marine mammals. However, at this time, these 
technologies are still being developed or refined. For example, while 
there has been some testing of unmanned aerial vehicles conducted 
recently, the technology has not yet been proven effective for 
monitoring or mitigation, as would be required under an IHA.
    Regarding the use of PAM, NMFS does not believe that at the current 
stage, requiring PAM (either towed or stationary) for real-time 
acoustic monitoring would yield reliable data (Guan et al. 2011). 
During the 2010 open-water seismic survey, Statoil tested a towed PAM 
for the presence of bowhead whales onboard a support vessel during the 
seismic operations, and preliminary results show that the detection 
rates were low (Bruce Martin, pers. comm. March 2011). As far as AAM is 
concerned, many technical issues (such as detection range and 
resolution) and unknowns (such as target strength of marine mammal 
species in the Arctic) remain to be resolved before it can be used as a 
reliable monitoring tool to aid in the implementation of mitigation 
measures. Environmental consequences concerning additional sound being 
introduced into the water column from an active sonar source also need 
to be addressed. Therefore, NMFS does not believe it is beneficial to 
adopt these ``emerging'' monitoring technologies based on their current 
stages of research and development.
    NMFS also considered AWL's suggestion of using scout vessels for 
monitoring marine mammals beyond the visual field where they can be 
detected by the source vessel. However, since the modeled exclusion 
zones at received levels of 180 and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa extend out to 
approximately 50 and 190 m (164 and 623 ft), respectively, NMFS 
determined that these distances are within the visual ranges that can 
be reliably detected by protected species observers (PSOs) onboard the 
source vessel. Therefore, NMFS does not believe it is beneficial to 
have additional scout vessels for marine mammal monitoring for this 
particular survey. Furthermore, deploying additional vessels in the 
vicinity of Statoil's proposed survey area would only increase 
anthropogenic impacts to the environment by introducing additional 
vessel noise into the water column. Concerning the manned aircraft 
survey, NMFS typically does not require this measure in the Chukchi Sea 
because it has been determined to be impracticable due to lack of 
adequate landing facilities and the prevalence of fog and other 
inclement weather in that area. This could potentially result in an 
inability to return to the airport of origin, thereby resulting in 
safety concerns.
    NMFS recognizes the limitations of visual monitoring in darkness 
and other inclement weather conditions. Therefore, in Statoil's IHA, 
NMFS requires that no seismic airgun can be ramped up when the entire 
exclusion zones are not visible (i.e., darkness or poor weather 
conditions). However, Statoil's operations will occur in an area where 
periods of darkness do not begin until early September. Beginning in 
early September, there will be approximately 1-3 hours of darkness each 
day, with periods of darkness increasing by about 30 min each day. By 
the end of the survey period, there will be approximately 8 hours of 
darkness each day. These conditions provide PSOs favorable monitoring 
conditions for most of the time.

Subsistence Issues

    Comment 9: AEWC states that NMFS failed to consider adequately the 
potential impacts to the fall subsistence hunt of bowhead whales in 
Chukchi Sea villages. Over the past several years, worsening ice 
conditions have made it more dangerous and difficult for whale captains 
and their crews to carry out the

[[Page 46735]]

larger spring bowhead whale hunt. Because of the changing conditions, 
crews from Wainwright, Point Hope and Point Lay have all been 
conducting fall hunts in an effort to provide for their communities and 
meet their allotted quotas. Last year, Wainwright landed a bowhead 
whale for the first time during the fall, which provided critical food 
for the community and served as a great source of pride and 
celebration.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with AEWC's contention that it failed 
to adequately consider impacts to the fall subsistence hunt. The 
potential impacts from the proposed Statoil survey were fully analyzed 
and addressed in both the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA 
(76 FR 30110; May 24, 2011) and in the SEA. The proposed survey area is 
~160 km (~100 mi) northwest of Wainwright offshore. Based on the small 
scale of the proposed shallow hazards survey, the radius of the modeled 
160 dB isopleths is 2.25 km (1.4 mi) from the source, and the 120 dB 
isopleths is about 39 km (24 mi) from the source. Therefore, the area 
where the received level could reach 160 dB is approximately 140 km (87 
mi) offshore. Subsistence whaling typically occurs nearshore. In the 
Chukchi Sea region, the fall hunt is generally conducted in an area 
that extends 16 km (10 mi) west of Barrow to 48 km (30 mi) north of 
Barrow. This is also confirmed by AEWC in its comment letter that 
``[s]ubsistence hunters have a limited hunting range and prefer to take 
whales close to shore so as to avoid hauling a harvested whale a long 
distance over which the whale could spoil. During the fall, however, 
subsistence hunters in the Chukchi Sea will pursue bowhead whales as 
far as 50 miles (80 km) from the coast in small, fiberglass boats.'' 
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the fall subsistence hunt could 
be affected given the industry activities would occur much further 
offshore.

NEPA Concerns

    Comment 10: AWL notes that NMFS is preparing a Programmatic EIS 
(PEIS), and that without a final EIS, additional oil and gas 
exploration in the Chukchi Sea is especially problematic given the 
critical information gaps that still exist today. AWL states that 
without information on the seasonal presence and distribution patterns 
of marine mammals, the agency would find it challenging to meet its 
obligations under the MMPA. AWL states that NMFS should refrain from 
issuing additional authorizations until more is known.
    Response: While the Final EIS is still being developed, NMFS 
conducted a thorough analysis of the affected environment and 
environmental consequences from seismic surveys in the Arctic in 2010 
and prepared the 2010 EA specific to two open-water seismic activities 
by Shell and Statoil. For the issuance of an IHA to Statoil for its 
2011 open-water shallow hazards survey, NMFS has determined that the 
information contained in the 2010 EA is adequate and that no 
significant changes relating to the environment and potential impacts 
from human activities have resulted since the 2010 EA, and that 
Statoil's proposed 2011 open-water shallow hazards surveys are 
essentially the same as the activities analyzed in the 2010 EA. 
Therefore, the 2010 EA is incorporated by reference in the 2011 SEA for 
the issuance of an IHA to Statoil for their open-water shallow hazards 
surveys in 2011.
    While the analysis contained in the Final EIS will apply more 
broadly to Arctic oil and gas operations, NMFS' issuance of an IHA to 
Statoil for the taking of several species of marine mammals incidental 
to conducting its open-water shallow hazards survey in the Chukchi Sea 
in 2011, as analyzed in the SEA, is not expected to significantly 
affect the quality of the human environment. Statoil's surveys are not 
expected to significantly affect the quality of the human environment 
because of the limited duration and scope of operations. Additionally, 
the SEA and the 2010 EA contained a full analysis of cumulative 
impacts.

Miscellaneous Issues

    Comment 11: AEWC states that in the past, they have remained in 
close communication with Statoil in the hopes that Statoil would be 
able to reach agreement with their whaling captains on a set of 
mitigation measures to protect subsistence whaling activities, but 
Statoil has been unwilling to enter into a Conflict Avoidance Agreement 
(CAA) with the impacted communities. In the absence of the signed CAA, 
AEWC requests that NMFS adopt, as mandatory requirements set forth in 
the IHA, the mitigation measures found in Titles II (Open Water Season 
Communications) and V (Avoiding Conflicts During the Open Water Season) 
of the 2011 CAA, which is attached with the AEWC comment letter.
    Response: As NMFS has mentioned previously, the signing of a CAA is 
not a requirement to obtain an IHA. The CAA is a document that is 
negotiated between and signed by the industry participant, AEWC, and 
the Village Whaling Captains' Associations. NMFS has no role in the 
development or execution of this agreement. Although the contents of a 
CAA may inform NMFS' no unmitigable adverse impact determination for 
bowhead and beluga whales, the signing of it is not a requirement. 
While a CAA has not been signed and a final version agreed to by 
industry participants, AEWC, and the Village Whaling Captains' 
Associations has not been provided, NMFS was provided with a copy of 
the version ready for signature by AEWC. NMFS has reviewed the CAA and 
included several measures from Titles II and V of the document which 
relate to marine mammals and avoiding conflicts with subsistence hunts 
in the IHA. Some of the conditions which have been added to the IHA 
include: (1) Avoiding concentrations of whales and reducing vessel 
speed when near whales; (2) conducting sound source verification 
measurements; and (3) participating in the Communication Centers. 
Despite the lack of a signed CAA for 2011 activities, NMFS is confident 
that the measures contained in the IHA (some of which were taken 
directly from the 2011 CAA) will ensure no unmitigable adverse impact 
to subsistence users.
    In addition, Statoil has agreed to utilize the Wainwright 
communication center (Com-Center) in order to communicate with 
subsistence vessels during its 2011 operations. The Com-Center will be 
staffed by Inupiat operators where practicable. The Com-Center will be 
operated twenty-four (24) hours per day during the 2011 subsistence 
bowhead whale hunt. The Com-Center will have an Inupiat operator on 
duty 24 hours per day from August 15 until the end of the 2011 
subsistence bowhead whale hunt and during Statoil's 2011 activities in 
the Chukchi Sea. The Com-Center will be managed and overseen by the 
Olgoonik-Fairweather JV. The Com-Center operators will be available to 
receive radio and telephone calls and to call vessels.
    Following the completion of the 2011 Chukchi Sea open-water season 
and prior to the 2012 Preseason Introduction Meetings, Statoil, if 
requested by the AEWC or the Whaling Captains' Association of each 
village, will host a meeting in each of the following villages: 
Wainwright, Pt. Lay, Pt. Hope, and Barrow (or a joint meeting of the 
whaling captains from all of these villages if the whaling captains 
agree to a joint meeting) to review the results of the 2011 operations 
and to discuss any concerns residents of those villages might have 
regarding the operations. To the extent possible, the meetings will 
include the PSOs stationed on Statoil's vessels in the Chukchi Sea.

[[Page 46736]]

    In summary, the measures that Statoil has taken, and will take, 
under the POC and Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (4MP) 
are similar to the measures identified in the draft CAA provided by 
AEWC. Below, Statoil and NMFS identify the key conflict-avoidance 
provisions of the CAA, and identify the corresponding provisions of the 
POC, 4MP, and the Participation Agreement focused on minimizing impacts 
to the environment and subsistence resources in the Chukchi Sea.
    Regarding AEWC's request for NMFS to adopt certain sections of the 
2011 CAA as the mitigation measures (i.e., Title II and Title V), NMFS 
carefully reviewed these sections and found that they are within the 
mitigation measures NMFS prescribed to Statoil under the IHA issued for 
mitigating subsistence harvest during Statoil's proposed shallow 
hazards surveys in the Chukchi Sea during the 2011 open-water season. 
However, these sections also contain requirements that NMFS does not 
believe are pertinent to Statoil's proposed 2011 open-water shallow 
hazards surveys. For instance, the draft CAA calls for funding of Com-
Centers and to provide communication equipment in Deadhorse and 
Kaktovik, which are villages on the coast of the Beaufort Sea, far away 
from Statoil's planned Chukchi Sea operations. Therefore, NMFS does not 
believe it is appropriate to adopt these sections of the draft CAA in 
their entirety as mitigation measures for subsistence.

Monitoring Plan Peer Review

    The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer 
reviewed ``where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a 
species or stock for taking for subsistence uses'' (16 U.S.C. 
1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this requirement, NMFS' implementing 
regulations state, ``Upon receipt of a complete monitoring plan, and at 
its discretion, [NMFS] will either submit the plan to members of a peer 
review panel for review or within 60 days of receipt of the proposed 
monitoring plan, schedule a workshop to review the plan'' (50 CFR 
216.108(d)).
    NMFS convened an independent peer review panel to review Statoil's 
Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (4MP) for Shallow Hazards 
and Site Clearance Surveys and Geotechnical Soil Investigations in the 
Alaskan Chukchi Sea, 2011. The panel met on March 9, 2011, and provided 
their final report to NMFS on April 27, 2011. The full panel report can 
be viewed at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/openwater/peer_review_report2011.pdf.
    NMFS provided the panel with Statoil's 4MP and asked the panel to 
address the following questions and issues for Statoil's plan:
    (1) Are the applicant's stated objectives the most useful for 
understanding impacts on marine mammals and otherwise accomplishing the 
goals stated in the paragraph above?
    (2) Are the applicant's stated objectives able to be achieved based 
on the methods described in the plan?
    (3) Are there techniques not proposed by the applicant, or 
modifications to the techniques proposed by the applicant, that should 
be considered for inclusion in the applicant's monitoring program to 
better accomplish the goals stated above?
    (4) What is the best way for an applicant to present their data and 
results (formatting, metrics, graphics, etc.) in the required reports 
that are to be submitted to NMFS?
    Section 4 of the report contains recommendations that the panel 
members felt were applicable to all of the monitoring plans that they 
reviewed this year. Section 5.1 of the report contains recommendations 
specific to Statoil's 2011 shallow hazards survey monitoring plan. 
Specifically, for the general recommendations, the panel commented on 
issues related to: (1) Acoustic effects of oil and gas exploration--
assessment and mitigation; (2) aerial surveys; (3) marine mammal 
observers; (4) visual near-field monitoring; (5) visual far-field 
monitoring; (6) baseline biological and environmental information; (7) 
comprehensive ecosystem assessments and cumulative impacts; (8) 
duplication of seismic survey effort; (9) improving take estimates and 
statistical inference into effects of the activity; and (10) improving 
the peer-review process.
    NMFS has reviewed the report and evaluated all recommendations made 
by the panel. NMFS has determined that there are several measures that 
Statoil can incorporate into its 2011 open-water shallow hazards 
surveys 4MP to improve it. Additionally, there are other 
recommendations that NMFS has determined would also result in better 
data collection and could potentially be implemented by oil and gas 
industry applicants, but which likely could not be implemented for the 
2011 open-water season due to technical issues (see below). While it 
may not be possible to implement those changes this year, NMFS believes 
that they are worthwhile and appropriate suggestions that may require a 
bit more time to implement, and Statoil should consider incorporating 
them into future monitoring plans should Statoil decide to apply for 
IHAs in the future.
    The following subsections lay out measures that NMFS recommends for 
implementation as part of the 2011 open-water shallow hazards surveys 
4MP and those that are recommended for future programs, as well as 
recommendations for future MMPA authorization applications and 
presentations at future Open Water Meetings. The panel recommendations 
determined by NMFS that are appropriate for inclusion in the 2011 
program have been discussed with Statoil and are included in the IHA.

Recommendations for Inclusion in the 2011 4MP and IHA

     Section 4.3 of the report contains several recommendations 
regarding marine mammal observers (PSOs). NMFS agrees that the 
following measures should be incorporated into the 2011 Monitoring 
Plan:
    [cir] PSOs record additional details about unidentified marine 
mammal sightings, such as ``blow only'', mysticete with (or without) a 
dorsal fin, ``seal splash'', etc. That information should also be 
included in 90-day and final reports.
     In Section 4.7, panelists included a section regarding the 
need for a more robust and comprehensive means of assessing the 
collective or cumulative impact of many of the varied human activities 
that contribute noise into the Arctic environment. Specifically, for 
data analysis and integration, the panelists recommended, and NMFS 
agrees, that the following recommendations be incorporated into the 
2011 program:
    [cir] To better assess impacts to marine mammals, data analysis 
should be separated into periods when a seismic airgun array (or a 
single mitigation airgun) is operating and when it is not. Final and 
comprehensive reports to NMFS should summarize and plot:
    [dec221] Data for periods when a seismic array is active and when 
it is not; and
    [dec221] The respective predicted received sound conditions over 
fairly large areas (tens of km) around operations.
    [cir] To better understand the potential effects of oil and gas 
activities on marine mammals and to facilitate integration among 
companies and other researchers, the following data should be obtained 
and provided electronically in the final and comprehensive reports:
    [dec221] The location and time of each aerial or vessel-based 
sighting or acoustic detection;
    [dec221] Position of the sighting or acoustic detection relative to 
ongoing operations

[[Page 46737]]

(i.e., distance from sightings to seismic operation, drilling ship, 
support ship, etc.), if known;
    [dec221] The nature of activities at the time (e.g., seismic on/
off);
    [dec221] Any identifiable marine mammal behavioral response 
(sighting data should be collected in a manner that will not detract 
from the PSO's ability to detect marine mammals); and
    [dec221] Any adjustments made to operating procedures.
     In Section 4.9, the panelists discussed improving take 
estimates and statistical inference into effects of the activities. 
NMFS agrees that the following measures should be incorporated into the 
2011 Monitoring Plan:
    [cir] Reported results from all hypothesis tests should include 
estimates of the associated statistical power when practicable.
    [cir] Estimate and report uncertainty in all take estimates. 
Uncertainty could be expressed by the presentation of confidence 
limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, etc.; 
the exact approach would be selected based on the sampling method and 
data available.
     Section 5.1 of the report contains recommendations 
specific to Statoil's 2011 shallow hazards survey monitoring plan. Of 
the recommendations presented in this section, NMFS has determined that 
the following should be implemented for the 2011 season:
    [cir] Conduct sound source verification for the sub-bottom 
profilers.
    [cir] The report should clearly compare authorized takes to the 
level of actual estimated takes.
    [cir] As a starting point for integrating different data sources, 
Statoil should present their 2010 and 2011 data by plotting acoustic 
detections from bottom-mounted hydrophones and visual detections from 
PSOs on a single map.
     In addition, the panelists included a list of general 
recommendations from the 2010 Peer-review Panel Report to be 
implemented by operators in their 2011 open-water season activities. 
NMFS agrees that the following recommendations should be implemented in 
Statoil's 2011 monitoring plan:
    [cir] Observers should be trained using visual aids (e.g., videos, 
photos), to help them identify the species that they are likely to 
encounter in the conditions under which the animals will likely be 
seen.
    [cir] Observers should understand the importance of classifying 
marine mammals as ``unknown'' or ``unidentified'' if they cannot 
identify the animals to species with confidence. In those cases, they 
should note any information that might aid in the identification of the 
marine mammal sighted (and this information should be included in the 
report). For example, for an unidentified mysticete whale, the 
observers should record whether the animal had a dorsal fin.
    [cir] Observers should attempt to maximize the time spent looking 
at the water and guarding the safety radii. They should avoid the 
tendency to spend too much time evaluating animal behavior or entering 
data on forms, both of which detract from their primary purpose of 
monitoring the safety zone.
    [cir] ``Big eye'' binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150 power) should be used 
from high perches on large, stable platforms. They are most useful for 
monitoring impact zones that extend beyond the effective line of sight. 
With two or three observers on watch, the use of big eyes should be 
paired with searching by naked eye, the latter allowing visual coverage 
of nearby areas to detect marine mammals. When a single observer is on 
duty, the observer should follow a regular schedule of shifting between 
searching by naked eye, low-power binoculars, and big-eye binoculars 
based on the activity, the environmental conditions, and the marine 
mammals of concern.
    [cir] Observers should use the best possible positions for 
observing (e.g., outside and as high on the vessel as possible), taking 
into account weather and other working conditions.
    [cir] Observer teams should include Alaska Natives, and all 
observers should be trained together. Whenever possible, new observers 
should be paired with experienced observers to avoid situations where 
lack of experience impairs the quality of observations.
    [cir] Conduct efficacy testing of night-vision binoculars and other 
such instruments to improve near-field monitoring under Arctic 
conditions.
    [cir] To help evaluate the utility of ramp-up procedures, PSOs 
shall record, analyze, and report their observations during any ramp-up 
period.
    [cir] PSOs should carefully document visibility during observation 
periods so that total estimates of take can be corrected accordingly.

Recommendations for Inclusion in Future Monitoring Plans

    In Section 4.7 of the report, the panelists stated that advances in 
integrating data from multiple platforms through the use of 
standardized data formats are needed to increase the statistical power 
to assess potential effects. Therefore, the panelists recommended that 
industry examine this issue and jointly propose one or several data 
integration methods to NMFS at the Open Water Meeting in 2012. NMFS 
concurs with the recommendation and encourages Statoil to collaborate 
with other companies to discuss data integration methods and to present 
the results of those discussions at the 2012 Open Water Meeting.
    In Section 4.7, the panel also recommended that Statoil's reports 
include sightability curves (detection functions) for distance-based 
analyses to help evaluate the effectiveness of PSOs and more 
effectively estimate take. NMFS discussed this requirement with Statoil 
on a technical basis and realizes that in most circumstances there are 
often too few sightings of individual species recorded during a single 
project to allow reliable estimates of sightability curves. Therefore, 
sightability curves from previous comprehensive reports (where multi-
year or multi-project data have been pooled to achieve adequate sample 
sizes) are often used and referenced in 90-day reports. Whenever future 
monitoring data present enough data from a single project, sightability 
curves will be provided in the report.
    In Section 5.1, the panel recommended that Statoil consider other 
new technologies (i.e., underwater vehicles, satellite monit